Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 17

foreign literature in schools

In the American school system, why are European and American classics the only writings that are studied? Why isn't African or Asian literature studied? --Metroman (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't give you a straight or unbiased answer, but read Western canon and dead white males as a start. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wait until they get to college. When I was in college (and this was nearly 15 years ago) I said the prototypical college class would be called "Gay and Lesbian Literature of the Asian Diaspora." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm too old to have been in said school system when Black History Month became a big thing, but I'd be surprised if African ones weren't at least options. Or, does this month mostly celebrate African-American history?

As far as a reason, remember that the major influx of Asians only began in the last few decades. Also, it was only in the last few decades that American schools were integrated. Now, consider that the students who grew up in the integrated schools/schools with more Asian students are just now becoming the leaders of various school systems. it is these leaders who must purchase the books and decide on the curriculum. So, it sems quite logical that any said classics are just now entering the curriculum, and that it might take a while.

Another problem, of course, is that some teachers complain they spend all their time teaching kids how to pass the aptitude tests to graduate, so they have no time to teach a large multitude of things, but I'm nto sure if this would really apply, so I won't go futher on that point.209.244.187.155 (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this used to be true, but it is becoming less so. Things Fall Apart, for example, is standard HS reading in North Carolina, and I suspect there are others that fall outside of the Western canon. --Jayron32 02:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If we widen the question, writing haiku (or tanka) is not an uncommon assignment and a few translated examples are often read first. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

When I was in high school (late 80s/early 90s) we read The Good Earth in freshman year. Later we read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and, I think, Things Fall Apart. So, while I never took a full semester of, for example, Asian literature, we were assigned selected works from non-European works. And yes, I know TGE was written by an American, I threw it in because it wasn't written about Americans and Buck spent much of her life in China. Dismas|^(talk) 06:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a year of "World Literature" when I was a senior. It covered all continents excpet probably Australia. Woogee (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly a large part of the answer, especially in the lower grades, is the focus on English-language works. Before high-school there is no such thing as "literature" class. Only "English" class. Even in high-school you've typically got four more years of "English", with, maybe, one or two semesters of "literature". When you look at it from that point of view, it makes sense that they would focus on english-language works. Sure, there are translations of great foreign works, but what do they teach you about English? APL (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can generalize about "the American school system". There are thousands of school districts in the United States, and hundreds of thousands of teachers, and each of them has a different curriculum. When I was in school in a New York suburb (ahem) thirty years ago, we certainly read a few authors from Asia and Africa, and I would have thought that the trend would be to read more such authors. I am fairly certain that such authors are read in many school districts today. However, there is resistance to reading "nontraditional" authors in conservative parts of the United States, such as Texas. (See this recent New York Times article.) I am not sure why some people involved in setting curricula would want to exclude authors from outside Europe and North America. I would guess that they might say (not entirely correctly, in my view) that the culture of the United States is derived from that of Europe and that, therefore, students can best prepare for life in the United States by studying the culture of the United States and its European antecedents. A less charitable view might be that the achievements of non-European peoples pose a threat to the conservatives' belief in white supremacy. Marco polo (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian situation is not so different. Twenty-something years ago, when I was in high school, the only non-North American or European book I can recall reading was Cry the Beloved Country. That didn't seem so strange to me at the time, as the history I got was largely Canadian history and the geography I got was largely Canadian geography. By that same token, consider the plays kids in HS get exposed to. When I was in HS, we typically went for five years and the plays studied were: Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, Macbeth... and Death of a Salesman, which was the prize you got in 5th year English for having gone through nothing but Shakespeare until then. Even as a HS student I appreciated Shakespeare, but that's obviously a bit screwy. No Wilde, no Shaw, no Gilbert and Sullivan or Rogers and Hammerstein. With some years of perspective, here's what I think went on: if you decided that you wanted to add, say, Pygmalion (or even My Fair Lady!) you're going to have to take something else away and comparing anyone to Shakespeare at a particular level is going to be a tough sell. Nobody really stepped back and said "Well, how about we only do two or three Shakespearean plays and work in a few other authors?" they just looked at a particular grade level. The same thing goes on with other literature. "Okay, we need to add some African literature to the program, so let's dump... To Kill a Mockingbird!" It's a hard sell. Matt Deres (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

When I was in (Canadian) high school (~15 years ago) we didn't read anything but American and British stuff, with a few Canadian books. Maybe only one, all I can think of is The Stone Angel. We didn't even do any exotic Shakespeare. We did Hamlet twice! Adam Bishop (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that all of the Old Testament is African and Asian, and most of the New Testament is Asian. I don't know if they are read in the US, but they are read (in small parts) in many European countries. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

They are read, but not in (public) schools for the most part. —Akrabbim^talk 20:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of the reason there's an emphasis on European writing in American literature classes is, quite frankly, because America has been hugely influenced (and was started by) Europeans and descendants of Europeans. So European literature is "familiar" to America as a whole, because most Americans have European ancestry/influence. American literature is obviously studied in American schools because, well, they're in America! I'd imagine that in Japan, the emphasis would be on Asian (and primarily Japanese) literature; in India the emphasis would be on Indian literature; in Russia, the emphasis is on Russian literature; and so on. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The first and obvious question is are you referring to a concentration on European classic or English classics? These are clearly two different things. Do you study War and Peace, The Iliad, Beowulf, The Divine Comedy, The Prince, The Republic (Plato), Les Misérables, Don Quixote, The Count of Monte Cristo etc? Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to a concentration in European classics. I consider Russia to be more of an European country than an Asian country. --Metroman (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the literary analysis things you'd do in class would be less valid for a translated text, as you;d have both an author and a translater involved. Different translations of the same text differ somewhat. 78.149.241.220 (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

working together

Do the European Union and the Commonwealth of Nations work together on a variety of things?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Name of long book then movie, author died in obscurity without publishing it

I saw a trailer or read an article a few years ago that seemed intriguing but I can't remember any of the key names/titles involved, perhaps someone here knows this. (This is the real life background, not a plot) A guy lives his entire life in complete obscurity - no friends, no family, no connections of any kind, there may have only been one photo of him, and for his whole life he has some crappy job like a janitor or something. He dies, and in his apartment they find this massive novel or collection of stories or something that he has been writing for decades, like 30,000 pages long; it's either a work of genius or the ramblings of a nut, depending on how you want to look at it. Anyway, they go on to publish it and now the book has a cult following and I believe there was a movie made about it. Does this ring a bell for anyone? AlexiusHoratius 06:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Was it Henry Darger? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That must be it; thanks! Although the trailer I remember seems to have left out the part about the drawings of little girls with penises... but whatever... art for art's sake, I guess. AlexiusHoratius 07:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

When I read your question, I knew I'd heard about this before. The name Henry Darger didn't ring any bells with me, though. I suspect it's not the only such case, and Darger is not the person both you and I are remembering. The search continues. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I know I've seen similar storylines at least twice. Ages ago, though... Vimescarrot (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It reminds me of A Confederacy of Dunces. 86.182.38.255 (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A similar question was asked on the ref desk a number of months ago but it concerned a man that had made a sculpture. It was viewed as a very impressive sculpture by those in the know, but did not excite me at all, however the man seems to be viewed as a genius of sorts posthumusly. Maybe if some one with a bit more time on their hands can scawl through the archives they will be able to find this Q&A~Zionist/NO need for a name/never sign a post —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This sort of art is called Outsider art, work that is developed outside academies by often isolated, unrecognised individuals and are often only discovered after their deaths or at least late in their careers. That page mentions several of them including Darger and several sculptors. meltBanana 21:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help identifying people in this picture (Reagan-related)

http://ipsnews.net/lobelog/ovaloffice.jpg

This is apparently from around 1985? But who are the people that Reagan is sitting with? I know they are Afghans, but names, associations, etc? Surely these must be some noted people if they're sitting in the White House with an American president. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.--70.122.117.52 (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say that since IPS is a news organization, they should know about the photos on their web site, and simply suggest you email them.

However, I then decided to try googling "reagan", "afghans", and "oval office", and this page at the Reagan Presidential Library web site was the first hit. The same photo appears there, with photo number C12820-32 and caption "President Reagan meeting with Afghan Freedom Fighters to discuss Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan. 2/2/83." If you want the names of the people, you could try contacting the library, or you could go to a library and look up the Washington Post or New York Times for dates around Februray 3, 1983. --Anonymous, 10:54 UTC, February 17, 2010.

The six Afghans shown are probably a group who traveled to the U.S. in January-February 1983 with Michael Barry, a scholar on Afghanistan. The six were: three witnesses to a massacre by Soviet forces in the town of Padkhwab-e-Shana (mayor Habib-ur-Rahman Hashemi, village elder Gol Mohammed, and cleric Sayyid Mortaza); a medical student Farida Ahmadi who said she was arrested and tortured by the pro-Soviet Afghan police; and two rebel leaders, Umar Babrakzai and Ghafur Yusufzai. You can read something about their claims here. --Cam (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but which is which? Obviously the only girl there is the medical student, but what about the others?--70.122.117.52 (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

When was this village created

Hello when was this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Las_Estrellas created? also can people go visit to there on as article says village has hostel but does not say people can go? also are there any towns or villages in antarctica i am not sure if this counts as a town? (Dr hursday (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

We have some articles on these things: there's Demographics of Antarctica which might be of most use to you, then there is a chronological List of research stations in Antarctica, and you might also be interested in this. Long story short, there are no real "towns", they are mostly research stations. There are, however, people who had been born on Antarctica. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

AFRICA HOME

Is Africa the home of man kind, culture and civilization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edafirobor (talk • contribs) 10:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this question—rather than worded for a 'yes' or 'no' answer—might better be rephrased, "In what ways might Africa be considered the birthplace of...?" -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In the current state of scientific understanding, it's a plausible theory that all significant evolution in the direct line leading from the population that was the common ancestors of both chimpanzees and modern humans, down to the humans of ca. 100,000 years ago, took place within Africa. Also, Egypt was one of the first two or three historically known full civilizations (with cities, writing, etc.), though Egypt was probably not the most important earliest site of plant and animal domestication... AnonMoos (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Man: yes, humans likely originated from Africa. Culture: yes, it is likely that culture was present in Africa first due to its headstart in having humans. Civilization: no, the earliest civilizations (which are characterized by centralized power, agriculture, and some degree of specialization) were found in places like the Fertile crescent in the Middle East, the Indus valley in India, and Yellow river valley in China. There was independent civilization creation in the New World, but it wasn't earlier than the previously mentioned areas. Africa's civilizations developed later and many of the major explanations involve geographical and environmental constraints on civilization formation.--droptone (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer about civilization depends upon how exactly you define civilization. Great Zimbabwe National Monument may be of interest. What we regard as ancient civilizations now all have stone or ceramic artefacts that survived until modern times. But its possible that there were other ancient civilizations where none of the artefacts suvived. 89.240.100.129 (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, ancient Egyptian civilization developed not far behind Mesopotamian civilization, and ahead of Chinese (certainly as far as the development of writing). Zimbabwe is significantly behind Egypt, since in all probability agriculture didn't arrive in the general area until the 1st millennium B.C., and the famous stone buildings weren't built until long after that.... AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jiahu symbols contradicts your claims concerning the development of writing. Woogee (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? It says "Current research would indicate that they do not represent systematic writing at all and that they were simply used as pictures or at best are a form of proto-writing that conveyed a message without encoding language." -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As others have said, Africa was almost certainly the home of the first people and cultures. Probably the key defining feature of civilizations is cities, and the evidence suggests that cities (such as Jericho and Eridu) existed in Southwest Asia thousands of years before cities emerged in Egypt (or any other part of Africa). However, another key feature of civilizations is writing, and recent evidence suggests that true writing (as opposed to simple pictograms) developed in Sumer and in Ancient Egypt nearly simultaneously, around 3200–3100 BCE. Egypt was also a few steps ahead of Mesopotamia in developing key state structures such as elaborate bureaucracies and systems of taxation. So an argument can be made that Africa is one of the first homes of civilization. Marco polo (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Civilization" actually came from Broadway in 1947. Edison (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that Sid Meier developed Civilization in 1991?--Jayron32 18:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does your statement have a question mark? Buddy431 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There may have been early cities in Africa. The problem is they may not have left an archeological record, or that record may be undiscovered. Timbuktu goes back to at least the tenth century, and it seems to be in a dry area seemingly not suited to settlement. Who knows if earlier cities existed elsewhere? The population size of a city would be like that of a village now, in British-english. There were other cities in Africa in the 19th. century, I dont know how far back they went. 89.243.151.96 (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We certainly know that there were sub-Saharan cities before Timbuktu - even locally, Aoudaghost was well established by the ninth century, and Koumbi Saleh apparently dates back to the third century. On the east coast, the first century text Periplus of the Erythraean Sea mentions various early port cities. Yeha is older still, dating from around the 8th century BC - and we can go back even further, closer to the Nile. Warofdreams talk 14:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

However, you can't have cities without agriculture, and there are reasonably secure (though approximate) estimates available for the date of the introduction of food crops and food animals into various regions of Africa, so that the existence of lost civilizations can be effectively ruled out for many combinations of regions and historical periods. AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there or was there any argiculture around Timbuktu? It seems like a very dry place with sand instead of soil. And agriculture could mean just keeping food animals rather than doing things with ploughs. 89.243.197.22 (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Kitzmiller v. Dover

The article Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District states:

The three school board members who voted against it resigned in protest, and science teachers in the district refused to read the statement to their ninth-grade students, citing the Pennsylvania code of education, which states that teachers cannot present information they believe to be false.

What part of Pennsylvania's code of education states this, and is there a similar provision in Missouri's educational code? --J4\/4 <talk> 17:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly Section 10, Item 2 in this document? No idea about Missouri. --LarryMac | Talk 18:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the court testimony of one of the teachers concerned [1] , the relevant provision is Section 253.10 of the Pennsylvania Code [2] - "The professional educator may not: ...(2) Knowingly and intentionally misrepresent subject matter or curriculum." Tevildo (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Missouri equivalent is section 160-045 [3] - there isn't an immediately equivalent clause in the statute, and I fear that any more detailed research might come under the heading of "legal advice". Tevildo (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Twelve Apostles in Sub-Saharan Africa

Why didn't any of the Twelve Apostles of Christ go to Sub-Saharan Africa? Apostle Thomas went to India. He didn't go to China because it was unknown to the rest of world and it was too far away back then, am I right? Apostle Thomas could have went to Ethiopia and preach his messages there. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, his Lord and master supposedly created the world, so He would have known about the peoples of China, and Japan, and Siberia, and the Americas, and Australia and the Pacific, and far-flung Europe. Why would he have chosen to deny such knowledge to his apostles? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Twelve Apostles themselves, but there are records of Christianity spreading throughout (northern) Africa shortly after the death of Christ, as well as the recorded story of the Ethiopian eunuch, who presumably would have helped spread and encourage Christianity in Ethiopia. Before Islam (and even after Islam), there were huge Christian populations throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa, and before this time there are records of Christianity reaching as far south as the equator. Of course, you have to remember that there were many other missionaries other than the Apostles (such as Paul, who wasn't actually one of the "big twelve" apostles) also traveled throughout the world, so I'd say it's reasonable to assume some went to Africa as well. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot to mention--I've also heard that in the 600s, Christianity had reached China and was well-known there, and in the 800s, a Chinese Christian leader named Adam worked on a Chinese translation of the Bible. So it did go there, it just took some time. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Legend holds that the apostles and other leaders in the first generation of the church divided up the world among themselves, and that St. Mark the Evangelist went to Egypt. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I misread the question and failed to see "sub-Saharan"; sorry. Nyttend (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For China, see Nestorian Stele... AnonMoos (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The prosaic short answer is that sub-Saharan Africa was not part of the Greco-Roman "oecumene", and not along any of the major trade routes leading to or from the oecumene (with the marginal exception of the horn of Africa region, perhaps -- but even there it was really Yemen which was on the trade route). AnonMoos (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

They also didn't really know that there was anything down there. It's possible that the Phoenicians or Egyptians circumnavigated Africa in pre-classical times, but this was either forgotten or disbelieved, and ancient maps don't even show that part of Africa. The Ocean usually cuts through Africa south of the desert. (Also, China certainly was known to the Greeks and Romans, although only through stories, since they never actually went there.) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, the evidence for Thomas in India seems very plausible. Edison (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the Talmud (written in Late Antiquity), when Alexander the Great conquered the Middle East, he told the "elders of the south country" that he wanted to go to Africa. The elders told him he couldn't because mountains of darkness block the path. Alexander went anyway and reached the land of the Amazons, where there were no men. Now Alexander was hundreds of years before the early Christian period and the Talmud was written hundreds of years later, but perhaps this gives us some idea of what people in ancient Israel thought of the African interior. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Driving East Coast

I already've been to the beginning of I95 in Key West Fl. I would like to to know what is the farthest northern city one could drive a vehicle to on the Eastern side of the North American continent? Imagine if I took I95 north but kept on driving... --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I'm only referring to coastline cities. --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Trans-Labrador Highway goes to Goose Bay, then you can take a ferry across Lake Melville to Lewisporte, which is considerably fruther south than Goose Bay. Woogee (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

How about Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. Rmhermen (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to drive to Ellesmere Island? --Reticuli88 (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the road ends more than 1,000 miles away! (The Dempster Highway ends in Inuvik, Northwest Territories, just over 1,000 miles from Ellesmere.) Rmhermen (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who's a little bit confused? The section heading clearly says "USA" but then the question text says "North American continent". So, due to your replies, I guess you really do mean the continent and don't intend on stopping at the US/Canada border? Dismas|^(talk) 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. Sorry for your dismay. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I-95 doesn't begin in Key West. You are thinking of U.S. Route 1. I-95 begins in Miami, Florida. The northern end of I-95 is in Houlton, Maine, but the northernmost point along the coast (in a coastal municipality) would be in Portland, Maine. If you are really asking about U.S. Route 1, the northernmost point along that highway is in Madawaska, Maine, but its northernmost point along the coast, depending on how you define the coast, would be Calais, Maine. If what you are really asking is what is the northernmost point on the east coast of North America that you can reach by highway, Woogee is right that it's Goose Bay in Labrador. However, you have to drive pretty far inland to get to Goose Bay. If you wanted to stick to the coastline, the farthest north you could go, driving around the St. Lawrence Estuary, would be Natashquan, Quebec. Marco polo (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's the farthest you could go, but not the farthest north, because when you come into Natashquan the shoreline is angling back south. Going by Google Maps, the northernmost coastal community along that road appears to be Baie-Johan-Beetz, Quebec, about 50 miles away.

It might also be argued that an estuary does not qualify as "coastal", and according to Wikipedia the St. Lawrence estuary actually includes the entire Gulf of St. Lawrence. By that interpretation, and if Goose Bay also does not count because you have to go way inland to get there, then the answer would be in northeastern Cape Breton Island — perhaps Main-à-Dieu, Nova Scotia, depending on exactly where you decide you're no longer on the estuary.

Also, we were asked for a "city". In North America that word is often used loosely to mean a community of any size, in which case all these answers are fine; but if you mean a place incorporated as a city, or at least a place of some size, then answers like Natashquan and Main-à-Dieu won't do. Even Goose Bay is incorporated as a town according to Wikipedia, and it only has about 7,500 people. However, I'm not going to attempt to consider what places would qualify as "cities" unless we have a much more specific question. --Anonymous, 05:30 UTC, February 18, 2010.

I would just like to know how far north up the eastern seaboard I could legally drive to before road ends/told to turn around/etc. I was kinda thinking of an unbroken line from I95 north. And if I was traveling on this road, what would be my very last stop where a US citizen to get a room for the night and then turn around in the morning. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you're willing to drive around the Gulf of St. Lawrence, then it sounds like your ultimate destination would be Natashquan. Some lodging options are listed here. John M Baker (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly what you mean, you can drive I-95 to Houlton ME, where it ends at the New Brunswick border. From there, there are two options: 1) you continue east through New Brunswick towards the Atlantic Coast of Nova Scotia, then follow the road in a roughly northwards direction towards the tip of Cape Breton Island. That's as far north as you can get without hopping on a ferry and continuing to Newfoundland. 2) you take US route 1 north from Houlton to Van Buren, Maine, cross the New Brunswick border there and follow various roads towards Natasquan as described by John Baker above (you'll need a ferry to cross the Saint-Lawrence River's estuary, though). However, by the time you've reached Houlton, you've headed quite a bit north away from the Atlantic Coast. If you want to keep following the coast, you'd have to leave I-95 around Bangor, Maine, head south to catch Route 1, follow it east towards St. Andrews, Maine, cross into New Brunswick there, follow Canadian Highway 1 heading east towards St. John, New Brunswick, and eventually, as you follow the coast line, you will catch up with the route described under 1) above. All three of these itineraries are well-travelled roads which can be done without any particular preparations. US citizens have no trouble getting a room for the night in Canada, but if you wish to remain in the United States, St. Andrews, Maine, would be your last stop before turning back. --Xuxl (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Capital Controls

What effect will capital controls have on international lending/borrowing? How does it effect the world interest rate? 192.58.221.196 (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

By capital controls, I assume that you mean restrictions on the movement of capital across borders. Obviously such restrictions would limit international lending and borrowing. How they affect interest rates in a given country would depend on that country's capital account balance. If a country is a net borrower, capital controls would tend to raise interest rates within that country. If the country is a net lender, capital controls would tend to lower interest rates. On a global basis, the mean effect of capital controls, by reducing liquidity, should be to raise interest rates, other things being equal. If this is a homework question, be forewarned that I have never taken an economics class, so you would use my response at your peril. Marco polo (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If your teacher framed the question to include the phrase “world interest rate,” I would go directly to him or her and ask which tenure and currency he or she thinks should be known as the “world’s” interest rate. As for capital controls’ effect on foreign borrowing, the first issue is whether the lender (to a country with capital controls) will be repaid, and if so, under what conditions. Uncertainty tends to raise the price of capital, so those with controls would likely pay more. Finally, I’m going to disagree with Marco polo about capital controls’ effect on the world economy. No economy with capital controls is big enough to make any difference whatsoever, even China. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm returning to this a little late, but I think the scenario being raised is that capital controls spread to many or most economies. Marco polo (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the teacher certainly needs questioning! DOR (HK) (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Papal Assassinations

Hey, I'm trying to find out how many popes have been assassinated and who they were. I cannot find a wiki page on Popes cause of deaths. Is there one, or do I have to go through every single pope page there is? -Shmuls (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You might find List of murdered Popes to answer your question, with caveats about some deaths. There are several early Popes of questionable historicity during a period of oppression and martyrdom, and there are old men who "died in their sleep" perhaps due to a little something extra in their bedtime beverage. Edison (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. In just 433 years (872-1305) up to 17 of the 88 popes were murdered! And even stranger, none murdered since 1305, unless you subscribe to Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories. Astronaut (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Fish on Ash Wednesday

Why don't most Catholics count fish as meat? My mother, who was raised Catholic, doesn't know (just thinks it's 'an Italian thing'), and I can't seem to find any internet sources that point to a reason. Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 22:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant, but Judaism also doesn't consider fish to be meat. This comes up for instance in the guidelines concerning milk and meat combinations being considered not kosher. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

i'm sure something about this has come up here in the past, and that there once was a pope with a financial interest in the fish-trade, who discovered through much prayer that fish wasn't meat. DuncanHill (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources, or you're just propagating anti-Catholic memes. Our article Lent has a little on the history, and shows how it varies with place and time. This AllExperts answer confirms my feeling that it is about the experience of eating flesh, as opposed to the less luxurious fish. This Catholic-Answers answer (generally a good source for what the Catholic Church practices and why) suggests that it is because the wording of the original law specified meat, using a word that is not used for fish. That doesn't really tell you why, but it starts to: the words for 'meat' and 'fish' were (and still are) separate because they were (and are) culturally considered different things. Meat is a more 'indulgent' thing to eat than fish. 86.182.38.255 (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The rumor I heard as well was that there was a pope that was approached by representatives of the fishing industry who begged the pope (due to the poor sales at the time} to revise the "fish is meat" argument. As far as I have ever looked into this story, my research shows this to be a complete fallacy. As for Judaism, I can say that in the Torah, there is a Kashrut distinction between fish and other animals.
Of the "beasts of the earth" (which basically refers to land mammals with the exception of swarming rodents), you may eat any animal that has cloven hooves and chews its cud. Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6.
Of the things that are in the waters, you may eat anything that has fins and scales. Lev. 11:9
Not sure if this distinction carried over into Catholicism or not. ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking my 1960 Webster's, part of the problem is the ambiguity of the term "meat". It comes from Anglo-Saxon and means "food in general, especially solid food, hence the edible part of anything". Hence terms like "nutmeats", the edible part of a nut inside its shell. The second definition is "the flesh of animals used as food". That leads to a further ambiguity if you separate "animals" (i.e. "beasts") from birds and fish (as with the fact that Indians who don't eat beef might eat fish and/or chicken). The third definition is "the main meal". Hence the metaphor "the meat of the subject" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

See, the reason I was given was that so many of the early apostles were fishermen, including Simon Peter. The eating of fish was a reminder of that. Fish was also used at the Sermon on the Mount, so there's a connection there as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That could well be a specific reason or justification. Fish are a recurring theme in the gospels - "fishers of men", and so on. Basically, fish-on-Friday would be "to remind yourself that you're Catholic," just as less-than-orthodox Jews might keep kosher to remind themselves of being Jewish. Unlike with the kosher laws, there's no general Catholic proscription against any particular foods that I know of. Fish-on-Friday was a church doctrine, not a Biblical rule, which is why the Pope was free to rescind it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Fish-on-Friday is in no way a Church doctrine, at all, ever. No-meat-on-Fridays has been, and is a standard way of fasting within the Church. Since fish is not considered meat, this led many to eat fish on fastdays, but the eating of fish is not required. In fact, if you really like fish or plan on eating lobster, it would be better to eat meat that you weren't fond of. The point is fasting, denying yourself something, being less indulgent. Anything else is people making things up off the tops of their heads. 86.182.38.255 (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

February 18

Affair

I'm wracking my brain for the name of a diplomatic incident...I would guess it happened between 1840-1910, and I believe it involved an American being arrested in Greece (90% sure it was Greece) - and the United States threatened war if he were not returned to the United States. Ironically, I believe I first read about the affair/incident on Wikipedia and remember seeing a contemporary political cartoon that showed a man (possibly Uncle Sam?) in the bottom-left of the panel holding a gigantic megaphone of sorts, shouting across the Atlantic Ocean to give them back "x". Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Greek" suggests "Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead!" See Ion Perdicaris. (The things one remembers from U.S. History in high school). Edison (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's it - clearly I had the story a bit jumbled in my head since he was kidnapped by a Moroccan gang - but there were definitely Greeks involved and I had the right half-century timeframe, and there's even a little cartoon like the one I vaguely remembered. Was it actually a large enough incident to be regularly taught in American high schools, or were you just special? It seems very "minor" compared to the topics we covered in high school...Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 07:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably because of the movie... AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it was definitely in the high school history book, before the movie. Maybe the authors just like mottos and catchphrases, like others I remember reading about: "54'40" or Fight!" "Speak softly and carry a big stick" "We have met the enemy and they are ours" "War is hell" "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." Edison (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Friendships

What are the chances of friends that drifted apart from each other. Rekindling their friendships after they drifted apart from each other.

Here are some examples that I have. Sorry, they all of are pro or ex pro athletes, but different sports.

USA Gymnasts: Vanessa Atler & Jamie Dantzscher

USA Alpine Skiers: Lindsay Kildow Vonn & Julia Mancuso —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 02:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are way too many variables to consider to even begin to figure this out. How good of friends were they? Why did they drift apart? Do they live in the same place anymore? (etc). If we even knew all of the people and circumstances involved very well, it would probably still be quite a guess. Human social bonds are not quantitative things; we can't measure them, and predicting them is often nearly impossible. The only thing I know to recommend is to go with your gut instinct. I also believe that if a friendship is meant to work out, it will with a bit of mutual effort (but that's just an opinion). Falconus^{p t c} 02:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, falconus. Your answer was interesting.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Watching the two of them being interviewed together on NBC last night, they didn't have much friendly interaction. Maybe they've just been competitors too often. They did say Vonn is close friends with another of her competitors, I can't remember the name of the athlete, but I think she's Austrian. Woogee (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

biographies of presidents

I'm looking for... well... good biographies of US presidents. Nothing controversial or muckraking or anything like that. Something similar to Stephen Ambrose's books on Nixon and Eisenhower would be good: fairly comprehensive, free of bias, with little opinion and no flowery prose. (My plan is to eventually read a book about each president- I recently got a job where I can spend quite a bit of my time reading) Any ideas? Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Where do you work? More to the point, are they hiring? :) There are lots of books about Presidents, and it's hard to avoid controversy, since most every President has his share. I don't know how much you know about the Presidents, so I'm going to make a radical suggestion: Before you look for books, see if you can find the History Channel TV series that covers all the Presidents. It's both a collection of mini-biographies and an overview of the history of America. I don't recall for sure, but it might well have a bibliography that could give you some ideas. Also, if you watch the Ken Burns films about the Lewis and Clark expeditions and about Thomas Jefferson himself; about the Civil War; and about the National Parks; you will learn a lot about Jefferson, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, for starters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have bought a lawyer friend of mine (who enjoys political and legal biographies), Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis by Jimmy Carter (not really a biography, I know) and Dreams from My Father by Barack Obama, and he was impressed with both. Astronaut (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For political junkies, I highly recommend two books that aren’t biographies of people, but rather biographies (?) of political parties: Party of the People: A History of the Democrats, by Jules Witcover and Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans, by Lewis Gould. Both are available on Amazon. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing Obsolete Old Party: A History of the Whigs has been out of print for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I bet "The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War" (ISBN 0-19-505544-6) is still in print. AnonMoos (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You could browse through Presidents of the United States: Resource Guides, a Library of Congress collection of various info about almost every president, including bibliographies for each. They don't have pages for presidents after Lyndon B. Johnson, nor, oddly, Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren. Here is the Chester Arthur Selected Bibliography, looks like fun reading! Pfly (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Robert Caro's The Years of Lyndon Johnson are truly excellent. He hasn't gotten to The Presidency yet but by the time you get through the first three it probably will have come out! --Mr.98 (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in the ongoing Time Books American Presidents Series. I believe they intend to eventually cover all of the presidents. I've read quite a few of these, and they're usually good. Some are written by leading historians and have perhaps a bit more opinion than what you appear to be looking for. The bio on Madison by Garry Wills is superb, but he's an opinionated guy, and he assumes you already know the basic history, so he gets right down to his analysis. The bio on Jefferson by Joyce Appleby is great, but it reflects her particular concerns. The bios written by non-professional historians, like the one on Polk, are less challenging and more for general audiences.

Aside from this series, if you like Stephen Ambrose, you'll almost certainly like all of the presidential biographies by Joseph J. Ellis and David McCullough. If you've never read a bio of Washington, His Excellency: George Washington is a great way to get started with your series. I could go on all day with other suggestions, but this is certainly enough to get you started. —Kevin Myers 14:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright for Oklahoma state song?

Who owns the copyright on the Oklahoma state song, "Oklahoma"? It's from the musical Oklahoma!, so I would presume that it was owned by Rogers or Hammerstein (can't remember which one of them wrote the music), but the words have been codified into state law, so according to Wheaton v. Peters, the text is PD as part of state law. However, the music isn't part of the law — it simply says that their music is the official tune for the song — so I don't see any reason to say that it's not still in copyright. However, the song is used so often that surely I would imagine R&H's heirs or publishers to sue for copyright infringement if they still owned it. A Google search yielded nothing to help me. Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Rogers wrote the music, Hammerstein wrote the lyrics. That's an interesting question. Obviously the song is or at least was copyrighted. So either the state bought the copyright or there was some kind of arrangement made. I'll look around a little bit and see if I can figure out anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I googled [rodgers hammerstein copyright], and this organization[4] popped up, apparently the publishing company that owns the songs. It doesn't exactly say, but the implication is that a license is required. I would have to guess that the state of Oklahoma made some special licensing arrangement - obviously an arrangement that's mutually beneficial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks; I wonder what would happen if someone got sued for using the lyrics without permission and defended themselves by saying that they were copying the Oklahoma Statutes? Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

psychology/psychiatry of Jesus of Nazareth

This is a query about psychology/psychiatry not about religion (so this may not be the correct forum). I am taking the Gospel accounts of Jesus at face value. More specifically, religion and supernatural aspects aside, I am assuming that Jesus was an actual historical person and that the descriptions of him (i.e. his personality, behaviors, etc.) are accurate. So, in my readings of Jesus via the Gospels (and references from the other New Testament authors), I do not see much (if any) evidence of Jesus having a psychiatric or personality disorder. So, assuming that he was of sound mind, why would Jesus allow himself to be brutally beaten and then crucified? Personally, if I were in his place, I would be singing whatever tune they wanted me to sing before the first crack of the whip! What are some possible explanations (from psychiatry, psychology, sociology, or other such field)that would make sense of what Jesus did in allowing himself to be "sacrificed"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.117.26 (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

He didn't "want to", but He submitted to it because He knew it was His destiny, as He symbolically took the sins of the world upon Himself, that the rest of us might be saved. That's a core belief of Christianity. As He prayed in the Garden of Gesthemene (sp?) He in fact asked God not to have to go through with it, but then He backed off from that and affirmed to God, "Thy will be done." (It's hard getting all those H's capitalized. Did I miss any?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Messiah complex + Martyr complex = Jesus. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there were lots of "false messiahs" around that time, and most of them were put to death and that put an end to whatever their cult was. This one was different. The question is, why was it different? Was there more to it than what you're saying? Or did Jesus just get lucky, so to speak? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There was the middle ages "Messiah" Sabbatai Zevi who similarly claimed to be the Jewish Messiah and who had many followers, but who recanted and converted to Islam when arrested so the authorities did not kill him. Crucifixion did not suit him. He was rewarded by being proclaimed "Effendi" and getting a nice salary. If Jesus had made nice to the Sanhedrin, to Herod, or to Pilate he could have lived to a ripe old age with Mary Magdelene, and/or Mary andMartha, the sisters of Lazarus. Edison (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're right. I'm no expert, but I believe that the crime that the Romans executed him for was political, not religious. The Romans didn't really care two hoots about exotic religions (in fact, they'd often assimilate them themselves) but political insurrection was anathema. Perhaps [probably!] I'm misinformed, but I believe that the Romans executed Jesus for being King of the Jews (as they perceived it). --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of both. The local Jewish leadership basically conspired with the Romans to have Him put to death to get Him out of the way, as they presumably had with other "messiahs" who they saw as troublemakers. Unlike the other "messiahs", though, it was alleged that He had been resurrected, which by the way is another fundamental, core belief of the Christian religion: Jesus died and had been resurrected, and believers would also eventually be resurrected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to Baseball Bugs, I understand what you are saying. What I don't understand is what would drive this. I mean, he knew that his death would be slow and extremely painful (not to mention the brutal beating prior to the crucifixion). Knowing this, why would he continue along the path he did?

In response to Sherurci, I checked out both links you suggested. The first (Messiah Complex) is not a recognized disorder and, as I noted in my original post, there is no evidence that Jesus had any kind of mental disorder (as an aside, even such people as Jim Jones (who clearly had a Messiah Complex), choose to die was via a fairly painless process (especially in comparison to what Jesus endured; also, in reading the Jim Jones article, he clearly had a history of mental difficulties that became worse as time went on; nothing indicated that Jesus had the same or similar difficulties). As for the martyr complex you refer to, perhaps this is an example of an extreme case of such. However, again, I can not see any evidence in the New Testement supporting that Jesus would have developed this condition. So I am again stuck trying to make sense of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.117.26 (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two valid psychological rationales for Jesus' actions (setting aside insanity and destiny...).

• Jesus was trying to reform what he saw as a corrupt system by pushing it on principles. This explains his general tendencies to question the actions of the Pharisees, and to cast himself in mythological roles (e.g. riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, which was a traditional legend about the arrival of the messiah). This is a common behavior among reformists, who often critique religious leaders as being corrupt and decadent, and challenge them to be more moral. Getting executed, in this case, would have been a miscalculation: he would have expected the pharisees to lose popular support and surrender to the reform on moral repugnance at some point before his death (though he probably would have expected to suffer some).
• Jesus set himself on a course of changes for the society, and accepted his death as one step in the greater path of the achievement of that ideal. This would be the more Socratic approach. Remember, Socrates chose to accept death when he was offered exile, because he felt that exile would demean the principles that he was trying to teach.

hope that helps. --Ludwigs2 06:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest reading Kantzenzakis (sp), The Last Temptation of Christ, a fictional account of Jesus based on the Gospels. It starts with Jesus' crucifixion. His agony is so great, He hallucinates and imagines life if he cooperated. The author is able to heighten inherent conflicts in the Gosepls and Christian tradition. A very powerful book. As an undergraduate, I studied several courses dealing with Jesus. This novel was more profound than any textbook.75Janice (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That is, The Last Temptation of Christ, by Nikos Kazantzakis. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The OP wrote: "More specifically, religion and supernatural aspects aside, I am assuming that Jesus was an actual historical person and that the descriptions of him (i.e. his personality, behaviors, etc.) are accurate". That's where the problem is. The "descriptions of him" can't be separated from "religion and supernatural aspects". The only descriptions we have of Jesus (not counting two or three highly disputed one-sentence mentions in Roman sources, some of which have been proved to be fake) are the ones written by Christians who subscribed to all the tenets of Christianity, including miracles etc, and indeed had set out to convincingly support them with their narrative. These accounts were never intended to make sense in any other way than the religious/supernatural one. If you want to accept them as accurate, then you have to accept their religious and supernatural interpretation, too. So any question you ask about what really happened with historical Jesus from a non-religious, non-Christian standpoint can get only one honest answer: we just don't know, and we never will. It seems very likely that historical Jesus did exist, but the nature of the sources is such that we know about as much as we would have known if he had never existed. We don't know why the Romans killed him, we don't know what the Jews' role was and what Pilate's was, we don't know what kind of a person Mary Magdalene was and what her relationship with Jesus was, we don't know if Jesus was a descendant of King David, we don't know exactly why he died, we don't know exactly how he died, and we don't even know if he existed. And if our life today crucially depends on knowing these things with certainty, then we are as good as dead and we had better live with that.:)

That said, the question "why would Jesus allow himself to be brutally beaten and then crucified" is strange. There have been countless martyrs in human history who have endured terrible torture and death for the countless different things they believed in. If Jesus was a Christian (i.e. if he believed in the Christian doctrine as we know it, i.e. if he believed that he was the son of God and that he had to die on the cross to atone for humanity's past and future sins), that was one good reason to do so; but there are countless other imaginable reasons.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What causes dark ages

Hello i was reading about ancient grease and how they embrace scientific method and logic and had many great thinkers with minds of skeptical inquiry eventually this way of thought was returned to human civilization but for long period it was absent i would think the meme of logical thought with skeptical inquiry would be superior to dark ages that is more thought would result in more progress and advancement in society and yet dark ages happened. What caused this regression or deevolution of way of thought among the educated class? (Dr hursday (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC))

High philosophy requires high culture; peasant farmers have no use for it. The collapse of the Roman empire left a cultural void in which philosophical achievements were only maintained within the Church, and that only tenuously. real philosophy wouldn't resume until the enlightenment, when culture reasserted itself sufficiently to support it. --Ludwigs2 06:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read our article Dark Ages? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya beat me to it. A lot of good info in that article. Now, I can't resist Will Cuppy's comment: "The Dark Ages were called the Dark Ages because the people then weren't very bright. They've been getting brighter and brighter ever since, until they're like they are now." That was written in the 1940s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If 1940s folks were the end result of centuries of illumination, what came after must have been a lot of burn-outs. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

They were illuminated by the burning of all that ancient grease. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That allowed them to go Roman in the gloamin'. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, now we're stuck in the dork ages... --Ludwigs2 07:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Then there was the Pope who started out as a gladiator referee at the Colosseum, then was laid off and became a homeless wanderer, his uniform moth-eaten; the original Holy Roamin' Umpire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Are all of you ignorant? Don't you know that dark ages are caused by Earth's rotation, and that darkness comes after sunset? Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Bah, Dark Age. Damn you Petrarch! Well it's all Aristotle's fault really. By the way the Greeks had their dark age too... Adam Bishop (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it only in Europe that civilisation regressed? Have we any article on the preservation of the culture in other civilisations (e.g. Arabic?) Dbfirs 11:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

... sorry, yes we do, and it is linked: Islamic golden age. Dbfirs 11:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire could claim to have maintained the light of civilization during the western European Dark Age. It's often forgotten about in the west - I don't think it was even mentioned in the whole of my education. One theory goes that when the Ottomans captured Constantinople in 1453, Byzantine scholars sought refuge in Italy and the Rennaisance started. Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There was somewhat of a Dark Age in the East as well — urban populations had dropped significantly and culture had diminished somewhat by the days of Justinian II (reigned 705-711), but it was far less than in the West. However, there's a good reason it's often forgotten in the West: Renaissance scholars saw the Empire as a far-gone degeneration from classical antiquity — hence the use of "Byzantine" instead of "Roman" to refer to the Empire in its last several centuries, even though it was a political continuation of the empire of Augustus and Claudius and its rulers continued to use the style of "Roman Emperor" — and thus had no interest in talking up the survival of its culture through what was in the West a very dark age. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

An earlier "dark" age ("dark" because the previous highly restricted bureaucratic literacy collapsed with the palace cultures it served) was the Greek Dark Age following the Bronze Age collapse. "Why" is always the impossible question in history as it is in our individual histories: recently historians are working on general theories on the collapse of empires; the book to read is Joseph A. Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies. So check the section "Social complexity" at the article Joseph Tainter. --Wetman (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Our Dark Ages article isn't very helpful. Our Early Middle Ages article is much more helpful. If you are really interested in this question, I can recommend The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization by Bryan Ward-Perkins. To answer your question directly, the general level of education in most of Europe dropped sharply after the 4th century. By the 7th century, very few Europeans were literate. The main exceptions were a small number of monks and church officials. Probably most of the clergy and most of the aristocracy were illiterate. So the "educated class", which was relatively large during classical times (though still a small minority of the population), became tiny. And even among the relatively educated in, say, 7th-century Europe, education generally amounted to little more than bare literacy and some rote memorization. The reason for this is that the infrastructure of civilization broke down during the 5th century in the Western Empire. As others have said, it lingered a little longer in the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire, which was able to reconquer a few outposts in Italy and Spain during the 6th century and bring them briefly into the orbit of its own (declining) Greek civilization. Across most of Europe though, the relentless barbarian attacks, at first along the northern frontiers but later throughout the Western Empire, thoroughly undermined the infrastructure of civilization. The cost of fighting off the barbarians impoverished the empire and left far fewer resources for the pursuit of knowledge or for the conduct of internal administration, which required a formal education. Meanwhile, the growing danger of travel and risk of loss to raiders and brigands on unsafe roads and seas rapidly shut down trade and, with it, economic specialization and prosperity. This further reduced both the need for and the ability to pay for the kind of bureaucracy that had encouraged people to become educated in classical times. During the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries, it was impossible to make a living as a scholar. There was very little demand for clerical or teaching skill because commerce and government had dwindled to almost nothing and few people really needed an education. Ordinary people faced hardship and had to devote all of their energy to eking out a subsistence living. Aristocrats faced almost constant threats to their security and sporadic warfare, and had to devote most of their energy to maintaining military skills and collecting meager tribute from the people farming their land. The wealthiest aristocrats (e.g., dukes and kings) might have employed a literate priest to keep track of their affairs but also to provide religious services to their extended household. Beyond that, in just a few monasteries, a few very privileged monks, supported by the work of less privileged monks, worked to preserve fragments of classical knowledge. Marco polo (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There were a few places that didn’t completely shut down. In fact, some actually florished then.DOR (HK) (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Those don't really count though...obviously they weren't affected by the collapse of the Roman Empire. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I could have sworn the original post was about "human civilization" . . . yep, it was. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The original poster doesn't even know how to spell "Greece" so I wouldn't assume that he even knows what he is asking. The "Dark Ages" are a European phenomenon. The Mayans were also flourishing then. So what? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Statute of limitations

Hello why is roman pulaski not able to return to USA yet is not the statute of limitations up on his crime? if it is not when will statue of limitations be up? (Dr hursday (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC))

It depends on each state's laws, but certain heinous crimes typically have no statute of limitations: murder, rape, etc. As opposed to, possibly, shoplifting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read our article, Statute of limitations ? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Like where it says under "Exceptions": "Rape, especially sexual abuse of minors, will often fall under this category." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Because he pled guilty and was due to be sentenced (according to our article on the topic). Statutes of limitations apply to the initiation of the charge. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. With Roman Polanski (not Pulaski), it's kind of a double whammy. He pled and fled. But if he had fled first, they would still be after him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Australia's First Fleet" printed medium by Jonathan King.

It is generally understood that this FIRST Fleet consisted of 11 ships, yet, Mr King comes up with a occupants list of "Ship Unknown" with mainly Marines with their wives and children . It is claimed that the fist born Whittle child (26 Jan 1788)becomes the first UK Citizen born in Sydney Cove was from this mystery ship.

I would like to know where this ship fits into the Fleets history.

It appears that the highest rank on board listed was Marine Sergeant.

If this of no consequence to Wikipedia; perhaps one could send me an email to A response would be very welcome! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.26.15 (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello i delete your email address to avoid spam (Dr hursday (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC))

Without access to the book you mention, I can only speculate - perhaps King means "I don't know which ship this person was on." It looks like both our First Fleet and list of convicts on the First Fleet could be improved. --LarryMac | Talk 13:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Larry Mac; good insight! Cheers, Dremdee

The Times archive

Does anyone know how I'd go about reading an article from The Times in 1989? Their archive stops at 1985... Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 16:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Try your local library, they may well have either on-line access or microfiched copies. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've checked that, and I'm afraid that my local libraries offer neither :( ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 16:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Do they participate in interlibrary loan? Because there are surely microfiched copies around somewhere, but you will either have to go to them or make them come to you.

They are all digitized, as part of the Gale Digital Archives. The Times from 1981 to the present is available through Factiva and from 1985 to the present through LexisNexis. But you will have to find an institution that subscribes to that. I don't think individuals can buy in. Alternatively, there is a place on Wikipedia (I cannot remember where) where you can ask people who might have access to send you the article in question. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Google News archives for the Times goes back further than that. You can see articles as far back as 1858. I don't know if every article is available, but take a look at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_user_ldate=1800&as_user_hdate=2010&q=%22new+york+times%22&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&q=%22new+york+times%22&lnav=od&btnG=Go Woogee (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The OP is not referring to the New York Times, but The Times. 78.146.181.195 (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem (it took me two reads to get it too) is not going back far, but things that are more recent. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My library (probably the whole county) subscribes to InfoTrac, which seems to cover this period. I can login through my county council website automatically with my library card number, this might be worth a shot; I believe it may be behind here. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

UK Chief Rabbi

How is the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom appointed/selected? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Good question! The Chief Rabbi's website [5] doesn't say, we don't seem to have an article about the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth (which is the body of which he is Chief Rabbi), and they don't appear to have a website. DuncanHill (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth is just an archaic name for the organisation now known as the United Synagogue (though their website doesn't explain the process either, unless I'm missing something). I'll set up a redirect now! ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 19:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The US website implies that the United Hebrew Congregations is not the same thing, as it says to see the Chief Rabbi's website to find out about the United Congregations. I thought that US was a member of the United Congregations, not identical with it. DuncanHill (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In practice, they overlap to such an extent that that redirect is valid (and certainly more useful than a red-link!). I think it's basically a distinction of the UHC including delegates from other Commonwealth Nations. But I still want to find out how the guy's appointed :P ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 19:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you know any Orthodox Ashkenazic British rabbis? They might know :) DuncanHill (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not on speaking terms with any, no [6] :P I guess I could ring their office number, but they might get the impression I'm slightly weird...! ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Having read that section in the Sacks article, I'm awfully tempted to start quoting The Life of Brian, but shall try not to! DuncanHill (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Texas plane incident

I just heard that some man in Texas flew a plane into a building to destroy it because he hated the Tax Dept. - Is this considered political so it could be termed as terrorism, or is not the case? --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

His religion will probably determine whether it is called terrorism. Edison (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Edison means "is he's a Muslim, he'll be called a terrorist. If not, he'll probably be called something else". Not saying I agree... DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The guy is dead, isn't he? He can't be tried for anything, so what difference does it make what his crime is classified as? As far as I know, there is no reason to believe he had accomplices. --Tango (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me the only significant difference between this and the Oklahoma City bombing is scale. So yes, I'd say it qualifies as terrorism. TastyCakes (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this article at the Washington Post contains the the sentence "A Department of Homeland Security spokesman said there was no indication that the crash was related to terrorism. " --LarryMac | Talk 20:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The type of criminal act - Terrorism, Criminal Damaging, Reckless Operation of an Aircraft, etc. - is also relevant for things like Insurance. The owners of the building will file their insurance claim for the damage differently depending on the results of whatever investigation takes place. In some cases, occupants of the building during the event might also have various claims - the type of incident would determine whether those claims go against the pilot, the aircraft manufacturer, or whomever. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no agreed-upon definition of terrorism. It is a very fuzzy concept. That being said, from a "common-sensical" point of view, I would suggest that if it was one person just expressing his frustration/hatred of an institution, I probably wouldn't consider it terrorism. If it was, however, meant to coerce some kind of political result, then it would be. I don't exactly see this as more than an expression of frustration—I don't think he thought he was going to set off some kind of generalized revolt, did he? In Oklahoma, McVeigh thought he was going to set off some kind of general Turner Diaries-style revolt, which puts his action much more in the traditional definition of terrorism and differentiates it (along with scale) from the more standard "disgruntled postal worker" sort of thing. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are legal definitions of "terrorism", but they vary by jurisdiction of course, and are of little use to what the OP is asking about. Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

One would presume that the Texas version was applicable in this case. Googlemeister (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This was not terrorism and is not being labeled as such by the media. This was one lunatic who was mad at everybody you can think of and decided to go out in a blaze of glory. Or a blaze, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to a terrorist suicide bomber where... TastyCakes (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't look very hard, but I couldn't find a definition of "terrorism" under Texas law. There is however a federal definition of terrorism 18 U.S.C. § 2331 (actually "domestic terrorism" and "international terrorism"), with the relevant language being: a criminal act that appears to be intended "(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." Terrorism is defined elsewhere too. For example, in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b "Federal crime of terrorism" is defined in even more detailed terms, including reference to specific crimes. There are other definitions. Our Definition of terrorism article is probably a good place to start (I should have realized we had that article sooner). Shadowjams (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If the IRS buildings are considered federal property (I suspect they are), then it probably would go by the federal definition as opposed to the state. Googlemeister (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The US government is generally self-insured, but if the building were leased from a private builder/owner, might the insurance policy have damage exclusion for acts of war or terrorism? And his manifesto seemed intended to stir up the public, following his murderous action, and/or to influence government policy. 9/11 with a smaller airplane and fewer casualties. ABC News reports that the socalled "antigovernment patriot" movement is rallying behind the guy as a "hero," and taking his words as a rallying point for their right-wing militancy. As for crazyness of the manifesto, it reads milder than a lot of talk radio and TV bloviators and politicians' rhetoric. U.S Representative Lloyd Doggett called it "domestic terrorism," as did Ken Gude of the Center for American Progress.The White House and law enforcement are more hesitant to call it terrorism. Edison (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Flatiron Building, New York

(moved from RD/Computing) dear sir or madam

i need to reference the flatiron building from start to finish i need to make a project version of this building with all its mathamatical figures, sizes, oddities, etc. i have searched everything i know of, along with my granny, who knows very little about doing any of this. i am 12 years old and if you can just tell me where to look for all this info i would really appreciate thank you so much brett ware —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.1 (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You could start with our article Flatiron Building and the references listed there. In the meantime, I'm going to move I have moved this question to our Humanities Reference Desk where it might get better answers than here on the Computing Desk. --LarryMac | Talk 20:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've moved the question, if there's anything in the article that is not clear or that you need more information about, don't hesitate to ask. Good luck with your assignment. --LarryMac | Talk 20:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added some essential detail to the article.--Wetman (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting project. WorldCat says some books have been written about the building, such as Flatiron : a photographic history of the world's first steel frame skyscraper, 1901-1990, The prowed tower : early images of the Flatiron Building and one from 2010, The Flatiron : the New York landmark and the incomparable city that arose with it. It's doubtful these books are in your nearest community library but your nearest big metropolitan central library or university library may be able to get them for you. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some books selected from among those at Google Book Search with coverage of the building which allow you to read some or all of the text: [7], (cool science fiction from 1908 of a mad scientist using a Tesla "disintegrator" to knock down the Flatiron Building), includes a floorplan, [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19][20], (the building uses hydraulic elevators, and they go much higher than that type of elevator is typically used for), photos under construction. What is a "flatiron?" see Ironing and in particular [21]. See Daniel Burnham, about the architect. See George A. Fuller, about the construction company, which also built the New York Times building and the Lincoln Memorial. How was it different from older buildings made of load bearing stone or brick wall? See Skyscraper. The steel frame bears the weight and the wind load, something like a steel girder bridge stood on end. Almost all articles and book coverage just talk about the appearance. I could not find details of the structural engineering calculations or the novel building techniques (riveted steel beams and columns), or the calculations on wind loading. Burnham drew pretty pictures and had big ideas , and mechanical engineers did the drudgework to make sure it would not collapse or sway in the wind. These were probably working at the Fuller Company or as consultants. Issues they had to deal with, and which were probably written up around 1901-1905 were how to provide elevators to get people up and down efficiently without taking up too much of the interior space with elevator shafts, how to provide fire protection (a standpipe was used to carry water pumped in at high pressure by fire engines on the street, so there was still plenty of pressure for a fire hose at the top floor), how to provide a water supply for drinking fountains or washrooms at reasonable pressure on all floors (simple supply from a water tank on the roof might provide too much pressure at the ground floor), how to supply heat, what effect would it have on the strength of wind on the street (it was said to make it hard to walk at street level because of the increased gusts), how to supply electricity to the entire building and still have enough voltage at all floors (where to put the transformers: they were then full of flammable oil), what kind of foundation was needed, how the steel was fireproofed, considering whether it was located over shallow bedrock or on sand or marshy soil, and how heavy it was, and even how to get up and down to clean the windows. Old writings from when the building was new are likely to have more of these details, such as [22]. This 1904 book notes that the exterior terra cotta walls were supported by the steel of their own floor, so that it was possible to build the steel frame, then attach the outside walls to one of the upper floors first. The ground floor exterior walls thus did not have to support the upper walls. A good early article about the engineering of this and other early skyscrapers is at New York Times 1908 .Edison (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to copy/paste Edison's list into the article's Talkpage.--Wetman (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thinking outside yourself

What's the technical term for the ability to think outside yourself (for example, to imagine what you would look like from the corner of the room)? Whatever the answer, do we have an article on it? AndyJones (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on the more extreme form: Out-of-body experience.--Wetman (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just imagination? If you are trying to observe, say, yourself rom another's perspective, it would be putting oneself in another's shoes, which could be considered empathy, if that's what you're looking for.209.244.187.155 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Self-awareness? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It can be a sign of a dissociative disorder, specifically a depersonalization disorder. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

All good answers but not quite the one I was looking for. I have an idea that there's a quite specific term for it: more specific than the answers above but rather less specific than Out-of-body experience (which is presumably one extreme example of what I'm describing). I may cross-post at the science desk if I don't have what I was looking for in a day or so: but I find I get better answers to language/terminology questions here. 79.123.57.130 (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)(Not logged in: I'm AndyJones)

I can't recall the term, but I remember an experiment with a specific species of spider that seemed to show these spiders had this ability, which humans also have. It involved the spiders finding their way to food, and climbing towers to see where it was then finding their way without being able to see it. If this rings any bells for anyone, perhaps it can lead us to the term. 86.182.38.255 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like projection but none of the wiki articles seem to agree with me. Livewireo (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Or visualization. Livewireo (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How about Spatial-temporal reasoning or visual thinking? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe the term you are looking for is: "Extrasensory perception".Is it? (I seem to remember that that has to do with supernatural belief).
--Seren-dipper (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Fixed typography & grammar, in my reply of February 24.
--Seren-dipper (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're thinking of empathy? —D. Monack ^talk 23:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

foresight?174.3.99.176 (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What state lotteries allow winners to claim in total anonymity?

I mean that they don't force you to allow your name to be known to the public. Not that you claim it without them knowing who you are. 71.161.59.15 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this question on the Powerball site, only one US state (Delaware) allows winners to remain anonymous. However, in other lotteries, it appears to vary depending on the state: a Google search revealed news results about an anonymous Ohio Mega Millions winner and an anonymous winner in Texas. However, I also read pages from the states of Oregon and Minnesota that said the names of winners are always published I couldn't find any single source that spoke about all states, but it seems likely you could look at each state's "lottery FAQ" page separately (presuming they have one, which seems reasonable). 24.247.163.175 (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This brief article suggests that in many US states, it is possible to set up a blind trust (I'm not sure that the Wikipedia article's talking about the same thing as the linked article) to claim the winnings anonymously. If you really have won the lottery, the thing to do is immediately contact an attorney, rather than ask a bunch of people on the internet what to do. After all, you can afford to pay someone who actually knows the local laws and can give you sound legal advice. Buddy431 (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are winners advised to get a lawyer? Note that this question can be answered without giving legal advice.71.161.59.15 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it can. Sure, most states might require the name of the "person" who claimed the winnings to be released, but if the local laws are also such that said "person" could really be an anonymous trust, the issue becomes much more muddied. I certainly couldn't say where such a trust could be used and how exactly to set one up, and I doubt that anyone short of a lawyer with knowledge in local and state money laws could. Buddy431 (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In Australia, the names of lottery winners were always automatically published. Until 1960, when Graeme Thorne, whose parents had recently won a major lottery prize, was abducted for ransom, and murdered. It was this country's first kidnapping. Lottery ticket buyers were then given the option of having their names suppressed, and anonymity is the norm these days. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

February 19

Indifferent to and ignorant of topics like taxes, insurance, social security, political activities, economics, etc.

I'm 21 and I'm indifferent to and ignorant of these topics but people of my age seem to be interested in those issues. Am I unusual and should I be ashamed? What would be the cause of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that you are really uninterested in economics unless, maybe, you have inherited wealth. Aren't you concerned about how you will come up with money for housing or to do the things you want to do? Those are economic questions, after all. As for taxes, insurance, and social security, the first two are only an issue once you have some money, which you may not yet at your age, and the last (assuming you mean U.S. Social Security) is only a concern when you get much older. So I would be surprised if a person your age were interested in those three things. As for politics, some are interested in politics outside their immediate surroundings, and others aren't. Still, once again, I'm willing to bet that you do care how decisions are made and who has the power to make them at school, at work, or even at home. Those are political questions. But there is no reason to be ashamed if you aren't interested in what goes on on Wall Street or in Washington (or in the City of London or in Whitehall if you are British). Marco polo (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we all have opinions about whether it matters if one is politically aware or not, and whether being young and political is good/bad/whatever. I personally find political apathy a little pathetic. But I will observe that once you start paying full taxes on your own income, you will probably find yourself taking a keener interest in them. I never really understood what that was about until I started getting asked by the IRS to pay thousands of dollars to support a lot of stuff (war, subsidies, thousands of random political programs) that I don't support. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt whether you were asked to pay, so much as being told to pay. That is a critical difference - decisions which affect every person, their wealth, happiness, chances of survival and so forth are being taken every day by people - politicians, bankers and so on - who have power in the society in which each person lives. Mature people are interested in those decisions, and try to involve themselves to some extent. Certainly, people are more likely to do so when they have other people, such as children, for whom they are individually responsible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm 19 and have had a full-time job, taxes and all, and I'm as apathetic as I was when I was ten. That said, I'm not really normal. I don't partake in the traditional British pastime of moaning. Anyways, I just spent ten minutes unleashing my best Google-fu, but couldn't come up with any statistics as to how many young people care. Which is odd...I'd imagine this is the kind of thing a newspaper would poll, decrying the depravity of the youth of today. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"What's the difference between ignorance and indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care." Rhinoracer (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fittingly, in this diff Vimescarrot asks himself when his desire to have a brain is going to kick in: [23] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

@Vimescarrot: I don't think such apathy or indifference is particularly unusual amongst the young in the UK. Maybe it has something to do with our taxation system where you only submit a tax return if your pay brings you into the higher tax brackets and you have something unusual in your source of income (like property you rent out, foreign earnings, huge investment income, etc.) Most income tax is collected at source through PAYE, your social security payment (national insurance) is compulsory and deducted automatically from your pay, and there is not the system of allowances for all kinds of things which I believe exists in the USA (so no need to go through your cheque book every year looking for things you can get tax allowances on). In other words, you don't have to be knowledgable about tax and social security to get on with your life. Astronaut (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I also think that because most working young people in the UK fall into the same tax bracket and are therefore subject to the same level of taxation, there is less of an interest in doing something about changing your economic situation through political means. I don't know if taxation is seen as unair, but I think most young people believe there is little they can do about changing it. Astronaut (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how many individuals (as distinct from companies) still use cheque books. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I do! Not very often, though. 195.27.12.230 (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I write checks for power & water and very little else, but I still use the same ledger to record e-payments. —Tamfang (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was Thomas Carlysle who coined the phrase The Dismal Science in reference to economics. Vranak (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in an essay berating economists and other ivory-tower meddlers for failing to recognize the intangible spiritual benefits of a time-honored and humane institution. —Tamfang (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

PHYSIOLOGY

1)What is the role of the endocrine system in your body ? name two hormones and explain the importance of these hormones in your body ? A: name another body system that is related to or controlled by the endocrine system .how does the endocrine system regulate to relate to this other body system ?

2) Given the following pieces of information ,form an argument either for or against the usage of this new brand of birth control ,respirdra .your target audience is a group of young women (age 21to 23) who are all sexually active .based on the facts ,you must decide whether you support or oppose the usage of this birth control by these young women .be sure to have a strong topic sentence that states your position on the issue ,at least 3 additional statements that support your position and a strong concluding sentence

Respirdra is a new birth control pill that has recently appeared on the market . it can be prescribed by a women’s doctor . The drug claims that is has a 99.9% prevention rate against pregnancy ,it also claims that is prevents against 45% of sexually transmitted diseases ( this is more than any other birth control available ) Unlike traditional birth control ,respirdra comes in a pill form and only needs to be taken a week ( instead of every day ) Respirdra is developed and manufactured by Roche ,a pharmaceutical company established in 1973.Roche is a well known and well respected pharmaceutical company .

In a recent laboratory test with 100 women 67 women experienced severe headaches after I week of taking respirdra .88women suffered from mild anxiety or depression after 1 month of usage .42 women experienced severe abdominal and chest pain . 3women who were taking the birth control passed away from heart failure .it is still unknow whether these women already had heart problems or whether their heart failure is linked to respirdra . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyhuang (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you have copied homework questions from your textbook and expect us to do your homework for you. We will not do that. If you need help with answering the questions, please explain what you have tried to do and what you don't understand. We will help you understand the material so you can answer your homework questions yourself. -- kainaw™ 05:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Automatic writing

The other day in philosophy class, I heard about Automatic writing and became very interested. The professor even made the claim that a person was able to write a different story with both hands at the same time. Ever since, I've been trying to train myself to write with my left hand so that I can attempt to write two different stories at the same time (not necessarily unconsciously, but it'd still be cool). My questions are: will I be able to train my left hand to write as well as my right or am I too old (college student)? And how does one automatically write? I know most dont even believe in it, but how would someone write something without thinking about it?  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 05:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know about you. An average person is able to do anything with his or her left arm that the person can do with his or her right arm. It just takes practice. -- kainaw™ 06:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Writing different things with both hands at one time would be much harder than just writing with the left hand, though. The bottleneck is the brain's ability to control two streams of language at once. Try reciting a quotation that you know well, while typing something completely different. Or try reading while listening to someone talk. I won't say it's impossible, but at best it's very hard to do it at all well. --Anonymous, 07:01 UTC, February 19, 2010.

I believe that many people think it is hard to do, but it is common. I am not special in any way, but I can write and talk rather easily. Because I teach, I am often writing on the board or typing a program into the computer while I am talking about something other than what I'm writing or typing. It does take practice - as does any skill, but I picked it up rather quickly. Similarly, I often have conversations with people while I'm typing - as I'm doing now. I am discussing my schedule for tomorrow while writing this post. It does make for excessive Freudian slips, but for the purpose of automatic writing, slips of consciousness are a necessity. Now that I think about it, a similar skill would be writing or studying while singing along to music. It isn't exactly the same, but the brain is performing two streams of language at the same time (assuming you want to count lyrics as "language"). -- kainaw™ 07:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you're taking your experience and generalising it, Kainaw. People can be trained to do certain things that, prior to then, they could not do; we've all done that. But most people have very strong resistance to writing with their non-dominant hand. It's only when they have no choice, e.g. they've lost the use of their dominant hand, or lost the hand entirely, that they switch to the other. Even then, it's a frustrating, uncomfortable, counter-intuitive, joyless and unsatisfactory experience for most people. (A bit like a person with no aptitude for language, who's displaced and finds themselves in a hostile linguistic environment. They use the new language, but not happily, and not very well.) I'd say you're one of the few people who have some natural facility for writing one thing and speaking another. The fact that you can do it says nothing about what most people can do. My only other comment is a question: what proportion of the population are "average", and what do you mean by that term? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

We all have various degrees of multitasking ability... but I don't really know WHY you'd want to write different things with both hands. Multitasking in general is usually results in a loss of quality to BOTH activities (and quite a number of studies have shown), and I find quality AND time goes up when I focus on one thing at a time. I guess it's a trick, but as tricks go... --Mr.98 (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a good trick for professors. Especially math professors. The classic version of the trick is to write the two sides of an equation with different hands and meet at the equals sign.

I've never met a professor who can do this, but I've often heard rumors about them, so it obviously leaves an impression. APL (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

One famous person capable of multitasking like this was James A. Garfield, who was able to write simultaneously in Greek and Latin; but nobody alleged that his was a case of automatic writing. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Automatic writing has nothing to do with being able to write different things simultaneously with both hands. In the latter, you are consciously controlling what is written, even if it is with both hands: the former refers to the ability to "channel" information from supernatural sources, bypassing the conscious mind. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Related ref-desk thread from last October, which includes a mention of automatic writing. Deor (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A "split brain" patient whose corpus callosum has been severed (as perhaps a means to control severe epilepsy) has two independently functioning centers of consciousness, and each brain half would be able to control the opposite hand. One half might have far superior language skills, and the other might have to do a lot of learning to develop the ability to write or type. Only one hemisphere would control speech. If one of those split brain patients wrote a message with his left hand (assuming right handed pre-op) then it would indeed be "automatic" in terms of the awareness in the dominant(speech-controlling) hemisphere. In the normal person, the activities of the brain hemispheres are coordinated. The limitation of ability to write different messages with both hands is one of short term memory and attention, in being able to follow two separate streams of thought simultaneously. Daniel Kahneman's 1973 book "Attention and Effort" included some examples of the limits on focal consciousness to do divided tasks. There may be simultaneous activities which can be done pretty well at the same time if they use different parts of the cognitive apparatus, or if one of them is so well learned it is automatic. If the tasks use the same mechanisms, there will be more interference. If a cashier gets into an intense and interesting conversation with a customer, she may continue to process the transaction fairly automatically, but forget to give the customer change, or to return the credit card, or some other detail. An automobile driver can have a conversation and drive at the same time (a verbal skill not interfering that much with a spatial-motor skill), but if the driving suddenly involves steering out of a skid, or high speed pursuit, it may be necessary to end the conversation and devote full attention to the usually automatized driving task. Similarly, giving detailed instructions for defusing a bomb might require stopping the car to devote full attention to the verbal task. Trying to write or type with both hands at the same time is a very severe task in that the nonpreferred hand lacks the motor learning to write well (except in those who have practiced it or those more ambidextrous), and in addition the same cognitive mechanisms are being used, as well as the same short term memory and focus of attention. Some sort of alternating/time sharing method is likely to be used, with words alternately assigned to the two hands, something like touch-typing with both hands. It sounds a bit harder than using both hands to play piano music which is being sight-read. Edison (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Tribe in Northern India

What is the name of the tribe(?), I think, in northern India where there is a high incidence of blue or green eyes in the population? --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Nuristani people spring immediately to mind - borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

See also this unforgettable image. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There are also the Kalash. Marco polo (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It was startling to see, once, a grocery checkout girl who appeared to be Indian from clothing and skin tone, but who had brilliant green eyes. Edison (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Diptych of novels?

Our article on diptych states that the word "is also used figuratively for a thematically-linked sequence of two books." Margaret Atwood's two latest novels, Oryx and Crake (on which we have a good article, if not a Good Article) and The Year of the Flood (stub), appear to qualify. I'm not talking of a sequel or prequel, but two separate literary works, each moving through a similar space and time with overlapping characters. An example in drama would be House & Garden (plays) by Alan Ayckbourn. What other examples are there, especially of modern books? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead could be another example in drama. 89.242.89.218 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

See also Side story and Parallel story?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Terence Rattigan's Separate Tables was originally a double bill; the setting and the minor characters are common to both plays, but the major protagonists differ. The 1958 film version (one of my 2 all-time favourite films) merged the plays into a single screenplay. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There's also The Norman Conquests, also written by Ayckbourn, but it's a trilogy, not a diptych. Woogee (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. and The Golden Age by Gore Vidal -- written more than 30 years apart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.35.55 (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephen King's Desperation and The Regulators would seem to fit nicely. They are set in different cities, but use the same set of characters (slightly different in roles, most notably with a family of four where the kids in one book are the parents in the other and vice versa) and the same supernatural bad guy. Other than that, many genre writers set up their universe and then plot novels in it, so you could say it's not uncommon to have books that are separate but working in the same space and are not sequels. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

John Scalzi's two novels The Last Colony and Zoe's Tale overlap considerably, with the latter telling the story from POV of a teenage girl, while the former (which I've not yet read) is I believe largely seen from that of her parents. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I have fact-tagged the claim in the Diptych article that this is a term used for a book and its sequel. Sounds to me like a lame neologism that some author thought would be cute and/or full of gravitas. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your responses. I wasn't familiar with the extension of the term from painting (etc.) to literature, and the Oxford English Dictionary does not list any example of the word used in a literary sense, but Wiktionary does. I'll copy the final definitions here, with two citations:

a. a literary work consisting of two contrasting parts (as a narrative telling the same story from two opposing points of view) "a diptych, a pastoral in which the author narrates the birth of Christ ... first as it has impressed the rich countryman Asveer, then as it has been seen by the skeptic Nicodemus" -- François Closset

b. any work made up of two matching parts treating complementary or contrasting pictorial phases of one general topic "the first volume of a diptych Vegetation and Flora of the Sonoran Desert" -- F.E. Egler

Stephen King's pair sound like a sequel, if a generation has passed; am I wrong? The Norman Conquests sound fascinating -- perhaps they are a triptych? Interesting comment from TomorrowTime about genre writers setting up their own universe; Atwood's latest two novels are clearly science fiction, although she used to resist the term. Any more examples? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

MMMMMMD

In Asterix and Caesar's Gift, a veteran asks a young soldier how long he has been enlisted.

• "Two years."
• "Only eighteen years to go, then."
• "Yes, my buddies and I have already celebrated our MMMMMMD."

A footnote explains that this means 6500 days to freedom. (Liberally translated from an old memory.)

What French custom does this parody? —Tamfang (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The French foreign legion where service was traditionally for twenty years. That is not the case now - modern legionnieres sign on for 5 years. Astronaut (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And did French Foreign Legionnaires celebrate when they had 6500 days to go? I assumed that the panel alluded to some customary celebration with a much smaller number. —Tamfang (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In Vietnam,the draftee soldiers made a big deal about their DEROS date,having a countdown written on helmet covers and on pin ups on their lockers.E.G."365 days and a wake up". http://www.zazzle.com/tour_countdown_calendar_mug-168525776297680622...hotclaws 23:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And did they customarily celebrate a specific number of days? (Perhaps there weren't enough in any one place who shared the same date to have a party.) —Tamfang (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In France, when the military service was compulsory, the soldiers used to celebrate the Père cent [hundred Father] or percent. It takes place one hundred days before the end of the service.— AldoSyrt (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's the kind of answer I was looking for! —Tamfang (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Source/authenticity of MKULTRA photo?

I am trying to determine the author/source and authenticity of a photograph that I have seen of a child that was supposedly a subject in the MKULTRA research studies.

Here is a very low-quality (partial??) version of the original: [24]

Here are a few links to an adulterated, low-quality version of the photograph (I have not been able to find a full-quality version of the original):[25][26]

Basically, I am looking for:

1. A full quality version of the original image.
2. A determination of the authenticity of the image (is this tin-foil hat crap, or is this a real photograph? -- and was it a photograph of an MKULTRA subject?)
3. The author and source of the image
4. Background information on the subject of the photograph.

Thanks to you all, in advance.

--Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If it were me and I really wanted to know for sure, I would try to just send a FOIA request to the CIA about it. The fact that there is a declassification reference number on the photo should, in an ideal world, make it easy for them to track down exactly what it is, if it is something that originated with them, and the fact that it has already been declassified means that it should only take them a few months to get back to you about it with a better copy. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the photo specifically suggests that it shows more than an old photo some kid in some sort of orthopedic harness. Edison (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Which doesn't really prove anything either way... again, the only way to really authenticate it would be to just request it again from the CIA. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Edison -- that's why I wanted to verify it. It would be nice to include some photos from some of the CIA's old experiments, if any exist (doubtful). It seems that a bunch of "UFO/Reptilian awareness" type sites have included this photo, claiming that it is from an "MKULTRA experiment", but I'd think if that was the case, then I'd probably find it on a notable website (like the National Security Archives, etc). I'm going to email them, and some other groups, and then officially give up. Thanks again to both of you for your answers. Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My guess is this was done as sort of an art project from found photographs, for a CD cover or concert poster or whatever. It seems that the maxim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies here. Some questions: Why would the CIA declassify this photo, and wouldn't some news organization or amateur detective try to identify the girl and locate her family? Wouldn't photographic evidence of a child MKULTRA subject lead to it becoming a standard part of any discussion of the subject?--Cam (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do Bermuda and Greenland have the same net worth?

According to this United Nations University list, these two share the same per capita net worth of $138,417 (which is also shared by Saint Pierre and Miquelon). That's strange, given that the density of that distribution is only 18 per $100,000. There are many more such coincidences in that table. Many of those are neighboring or related countries/locations, so that a possible explanation might be that these values were not computed per country/location, but per some common criterion. However, I don't see such a common criterion between Bermuda and Greenland, other than that they're islands. Moreover, there are more such pairings that aren't apparently connected:

• Iraq - Maldives
• Libya - Réunion

Is there an error in that table, or am I overlooking something? I asked a similar question a few days ago at Talk:World_distribution_of_wealth#Why are there so many repeated values?, but have not received an answer there. — Sebastian 20:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is $138,417 a round number in Euros? —Tamfang (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's €102,000-ish now, but it could have been €100,000 when it was written. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What a great idea! Unfortunately, with the conversion of $138,417 → €100,000, no other value but that of the Bermuda-Greenland connection becomes a round number, or something that looks like a nice fraction of one. I get the following list for the group values: €2,526.79, €34,366.37, €55,169.45, €61,447.73, €71,903.09, €76,065.22. It doesn't look better when I look at solitary values, either. — Sebastian 21:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The source provided is a copy of something called wider-wdhw-tables-2006[1].xls, which comes from an undefined source and uses undefined formulae to divide the world’s (undefined) wealth among the nations and territories based on data from a decade ago (as best I can gather). What makes you think the data are either accurate or unbiased? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not just some "undefined source"; the source is the United Nations University; they gotta be more reliable than your average web page! But you're right, it's not good scientific practice to just put these values there without any derivation. Do you have a reason to assume that they are inaccurate or biased? If so, then we shouldn't just replicate them unquestioningly in our article. — Sebastian 07:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

February 20

Mardrus-Mathers translation

Is the story "Khudadad and his brothers" included in the Mardrus-Mathers translation of The 1001 nights? I ask this since a number of the stories have different titles than other translations. Yes, I'm aware of MM's shortcomings as a translation. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitefox (talk • contribs) 01:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not. Deor (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

lgbts and communists

is there any link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.247 (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah.--Wetman (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, most communist countries had (harsh) laws against homosexuality and they were enforced. --71.142.65.227 (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. They had laws against sexual activity between people of the same sex, as did many other countries, and some still do. But no country has ever legislated against homosexuality itself, because the internal feeling states of individuals are impossible to control legislatively. But back to the question, there is no reason to suppose that Communists would not include some LGBT people, just as any other political/social group would. Some LGBT people would be attracted to the idealism inherent in Communism, but others would be repelled by the repression of minorities that has actually characterised Communist regimes in practice. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

We have an article: Communism and homosexuality. Apparently, the views have been mixed, from Albania where there was a prison sentence for homosexual conduct to this: Homosexuality was officially decriminalized in communist East Germany in 1967, a year ahead of the Allied-backed West Germany. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made a comment on that talk page about the sloppy and misleading terminology used in the article. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Both are conservative bogeymen? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hence the mock-conservative comment that I think was from National Lampoon's High School Yearbook Parody: "A communist is worse than a homosexual. In fact, a communist is worse than two homosexuals." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

antarctic

Hello would it be possible for a town to exist on tip of antarctic penisula? i do not mean scientific research station but town like others with hotel and resort like for tourist and such? (Dr hursday (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC))

Assuming you had the legal matters straightened out, I don't see why not. It would of course be costly to construct and support, so the real question is, would it be worth it? Would enough tourists go there for it to be feasible? TomorrowTime (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Straightening the legal matters out" would be far from trivial for a land with legally belongs to no country (or is possibly claimed by multiple countries). See the Antarctic Treaty and Antarctic land claims. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What legal matters? —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there is one there already - do not remember the name. 78.149.241.220 (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there are no towns anywhere in Antarctica, and no permanent inhabitants. There are only research stations, though the largest of them can accommodate over 1,000 people. Marco polo (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong, if the map at the Villa Las Estrellas article is to be believed. Its got houses, a school, a post office, a kindergarten, a registry for weddings etc., a bank, a library, a hostel, a souvenir shop, a church, supermarket, tv, internet, radio. I'd call that a town, and its within Antartica. I know you are going to quibble and say its on an island next to the peninsula. 78.146.167.216 (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Villa Las Estrellas is the name given to the residential area of Chile's Montalva Station. --Cam (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It still appears to be a town in its own right. Tourists can go there. 78.146.74.227 (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There are towns on Svalbard which at 78 degrees N is considerably closer to the North Pole than the northern part of Antarctica peninsula is to the south pole (about 63 S). It's harder to supply the Antarctic due to its greater distance from significant cities, ports, etc, but this doesn't absolutely prevent settlement. Temperatures in the Antarctic peninsula can reach 9 C[27] although winters are cold. --Normansmithy (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ever seen a 2008 model Audi RS6 Avant in the wild outside Europe?

(Not sure if this belongs in Humanities, but it is sort of a business question.) Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever seen a 2008 model Audi RS6 Avant in the wild outside Europe? By in the wild I mean not at a show or in a racing context, if that even happens. I understand it is not sold in the US (the saloon is, though), but it is in Australia.

("Avant" is Audi-ese for estate / station wagon. See our picture.)

83.81.42.44 (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

british royal succession

When HRH Prince Charles becomes King, and decided to abdicate the throne, would that abdication have any legal or binding effect on his own line of succession? ie; would William be next in line, or would the abdication apply to Charles's progeny and therefore revert to HRH Prince Andrew ascending the British throne?Mcwade-s (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The former, William would be king. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Any references for that assertion? --Tango (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no laws in Britain regarding abdication, so there is no way to know precisely how it would be done. A special Act of Parliament is required for each abdication and determines what happens. The only precedent is the abdication of Edward VIII. When he abdicated he also waived the rights of any of his children to inherit the throne, however he didn't have any children then (and, in fact, never had any), so it is very different. It makes sense that children born after the abdication wouldn't be in the line of succession (other than, perhaps, through their mother) - the alternative is a very confusing line where someone can be born and take the throne off someone that had it for years. If Charles were to abdicate, I would expect his existing children to keep their positions in the line as if their father had died but any future children would not be in the line, but there is really no way to know. There is no precedent. It is very unlikely that Charles will abdicate, though. --Tango (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical: Suppose Edward had remained as king, and remained without issue. Would Elizabeth have become queen anyway? Though presumably not until Edward died, which was in 1972. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Princess Elizabeth would have been the heiress presumptive at the time of the King's death. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Since he died without issue, his abdication ceased to have any effect after his death. --Tango (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That confuses matters. We're now discussing the hypothetical case where he didn't abdicate. Any hypothetical issue he had while king would have succeeded him in 1972. Barring such issue, Princess Elizabeth was next in line, being the elder daughter of Edward's next younger brother (the brother himself having died in 1952). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. If we change one fact about the past, we can't just assume everything else stays the same. If he had married someone else and had children, things could be completely different. --Tango (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

True. By the way, Princess Elizabeth would have ceased being heiress presumptive and become heiress apparent when her father George died in 1952. There was no longer even the hypothetical possibility that her place in the line of succession could be taken by a later-born brother. Even if the Queen Mum remarried and had a son, that son would have had no right of succession. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

But if Edward hadn't abdicated, there would still be a chance of him having a child. --Tango (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I said above "any hypothetical issue he had while king would have succeeded him in 1972".

Actually, Elizabeth would never have been heiress presumptive at all. George was heir apparent (barring Edward having kids of his own), and she was just his daughter. Then George died in 1952, so Elizabeth would have become heiress apparent; until 1972, when she would have succeeded Edward VIII. The heiress presumptive tag only applies where the reigning monarch has only (one or more) daughters, but that monarch is still alive and so can still potentially produce a son, who would displace the daughter from the head of the line of succession. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

When George died, she became Queen... --Tango (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You're still confused, Tango. We're still talking about the hypothetical scenario that Edward VIII did NOT ABDICATE, but remained king till his death in 1972 when he was succeeded by Princess Elizabeth, her father George having predeceased her in 1952 and NEVER became king. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If Edward is still king and still alive, then he can still have issue that would take precedence over Elizabeth, which is the point I made above. --Tango (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Which I have acknowledged twice now. But let's stick to the original side question, which assumes Edward never had any children. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The question I posed was, what if Edward had remained king and did not have children. I had thought Princess Elizabeth would have been the next in line in 1972, and apparently I was correct. Now, if Edward had died in 1951, without children, presumably his brother who in real life became George VI in the 30s, would have become king in 1951, and after he died then Elizabeth would have become queen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we moved on from that question. The present discussion is about whether Elizabeth would be heir apparent or heir presumptive after her father's death. She would have been heir presumptive, because Edward could have had children. --Tango (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Until just now, when did we ever move on from Baseball Bugs' original question, Tango?

"She would have been heir presumptive, because Edward could have had children" is a meaningless sentence. You can't mix up your woulds and coulds, and your heirs and heiresses, with gay abandon, and hope to get away with it. :)

If Edward had never abdicated, and had heirs, then they and their progeny would have succeeded him according to law. In that circumstance, Elizabeth would never have got close to the throne at all, and would certainly never have been heiress anything. She would have been simply the cousin of either the heir apparent, or of the heiress presumptive, and when that person succeeded Edward, she would have been the cousin of the King or Queen. Or, if Edward's children all predeceased him, but had children of their own, one of those grandchildren would have become monarch, and Elizabeth would be cousin once removed to the monarch. Which is exactly how she was viewed when she was born. At that time, nobody imagined she would ever become queen; it was widely assumed the heir apparent, her uncle Prince Edward, as he then was, would marry, have children and become king (not necessarily in that order). Even the notion he would remain childless was pretty much unthinkable, as he was rumoured to have already fathered illegitimate children in various parts of the Empire. Let alone the idea he would abdicate. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Round about my post at 21:35 UTC, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear what I was questioning. You are simply incorrect about Elizabeth being heir apparent. I can't see any way a woman could ever be heir apparent, since there is always a chance of the current monarch having a son. She would have been heir presumptive because, at that hypothetical time, there would have been a chance of Edward having children. You don't retrospectively rename an heir presumptive to heir apparent in all the history books when they inherit and you discover that nobody else was born above them. --Tango (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tango's point was valid: with Edward childless, after his death there is no dynastic difference between the two versions of history (ours and the alternate in which he reigned and remained childless). It was merely expressed in a form that made its logic a little bit harder to see than it might be. —Tamfang (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to make Tango's explanation a little bit more explicit. As a matter of law, Edward VIII didn't "abdicate and waive his children's rights", because the relevant law (Act of Settlement 1701) says that the senior legitimate descendant of Sophia of Hanover, not disqualified by religion, is the monarch; his or her wishes, or parent's wishes, ain't relevant. So he asked Parliament to amend the law to exclude him and his descendants, Parliament did so, and Edward sealed it. Charles could do likewise, or he could ask Parliament to amend the law to further anyone born in 1948. — Here's another fun hypothetical. If a descendant of the Duke of Windsor marries someone in the succession, is their child excluded by the terms of the Act of 1938? —Tamfang (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

An interesting question. The relevant section of the Act says: "His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty’s abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne, and section one of the M2 Act of Settlement shall be construed accordingly." A literal interpretation of that would seem to imply that they could not inherit, even through another line. It would seem odd if that was the intention, though - the aristocracy interbreed so much that, had he had children, within a few generations a significant portion of the line of succession could be excluded, possibly including people that would have been near the top. For example, first cousin marriages are very common among royalty, so it wouldn't be that surprising for George VI's eldest son (had he had one) to marry Edward VIII's daughter (had he had one) and for them to have a son. That son would be direct line to the throne, but unable to take it due to the 1938 Act. Very odd... --Tango (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• (deindent) On reflection, you're right. I was taking the hypothesis that Edward never had children while remaining king and assuming this was known to the players. But while that scenario was playing out, the players would not have known the outcome, and as far as they were concerned it would have been possible for him to produce children, so she would indeed have been considered heiress presumptive at the time.
• However, it is possible for a woman to be heiress apparent. Here's an example:

• William marries Kate and they have 3 daughters in quick succession. No sons. Charles is still the heir apparent. Then Charles and William are killed in a skiing accident. They check whether Kate is pregnant - no. William's eldest daughter Desdemona is now the heiress apparent to her great-grandmother. Why not heiress presumptive? Because there is no possibility any more that William could have any sons, being 6 feet under. And there is no possibility that she could be supplanted by any of her father’s siblings, as William was the elder of 2 males; or by her grandfather's siblings, as he was the eldest of 3 males and a female. Kate could remarry and have 20 sons, but they would not be in the line of succession. Even if Elizabeth and Philip were to have another child (!!) at this late juncture, it would have no impact on Desdemona being heiress. There is simply no way she would not succeed Elizabeth, unless she herself were to die before Elizabeth, in which case her sister Demelza would become heiress apparent. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• See also Heir apparent#Women as heirs apparent. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

True. There were cases when women were heiresses apparent to their grandparent's peerage. See Category:Female heirs apparent. These possibilities are exactly what makes male-preferance primogeniture much more interesting than the so-called "equal" primogeniture. I wonder: would an heiress apparent to the British throne be granted the Princedom of Wales? Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is discussed @ Prince of Wales#"Heir Apparent" vs. "Heir Presumptive". The situation has never arisen, so it's still in the realm of hypothesis. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Princess Elizabeth was heiress apparent while King George VI was king. She was never created Princess of Wales. --Kvasir (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, she wasn't. King George VI could have had a son at any time during his life who would have taken precedence over Elizabeth. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Princess George of Denmark was heiress apparent to the English throne during the reign of her cousin/brother-in-law William III, having been designated as such by the parliament and irreplaceable by any children William could have had by any wife other than Anne's sister Mary II. Nonetheless, she was never created Princess of Wales. Perhaps that's because she was already a princess of Denmark. Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What % of the Roman empire was Jewish?

What % of the Roman empire was Jewish?--Gary123 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A fairly small percentage, but there were actually a significant number of converts and semi-converts attracted by the moral code and strict monotheism of Judaism before the two great Jewish revolts of the 60's and the 130's (after which there was much more conversion to Christianity rather than Judaism). AnonMoos (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The truth is that we just can't know. There are no reliable, detailed statistics from that time. I have seen estimates that Jews made up 10% of the population of the empire during the 1st century CE. The Atlas of World Population History by McEvedy and Jones, which remains the best survey of historical population estimates, gives a population of about 800,000 for the present-day areas of Israel and Jordan in 1 CE. (Incidentally, this was a population peak not to be regained until 1900.) Jews were probably a majority in this area during the early 1st century, but not an overwhelming majority. So, that suggests 500,000 to 600,000 Jews in Judea and surrounding areas, with maybe another 300,000 in Syria (out of a total population for Syria—including Lebanon—of 2.3 million. The same source gives a population of about 50 million for the Roman empire at its peak during the 1st century. Now, the same sources that suggest that Jews made up 10% of the population of the empire state that Jews made up 25% of the population of cities in the eastern part of the empire and a lower proportion of the population of cities in the west. My understanding is that, outside of the Levant, Jews were almost entirely urban. The Roman empire was more urbanized than most premodern societies, but even in the heavily urbanized east, cities almost certainly made up no more than 30% of the total population. If we take 30% of the population of the eastern provinces outside of the Levant, for which we have already accounted, we get an urban population of 3.84 million for Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, and Thrace. If it is true that Jews made up 25% of the people of these cities, that suggests another almost 1 million Jews in addition to the almost 1 million in the Levant, for a total of about 1.8 million in the eastern empire. Outside of Italy, the population of the western Roman empire was almost certainly less than 30% urban, and the cities of the west certainly had a lower percentage of Jews. If we accept that 30% of the population of Italy was urban, that 20% of the population of the more advanced western provinces—such as Hispania and Gaul—was urban and that cities made up only about 10% of the population in the more remote and primitive provinces, such as Britannia (conquered during the 1st century), we get an urban population for the western empire of just under 6 million, still relying on the source I mentioned above. If Jews made up 10% of the people in these western cities, that would be 600,000 people, for a total population of Jews in the empire of about 2.4 million. This would be only 5% of the empire's total population. I find it hard to accept estimates that Jews made up 10% of the empire's population and wonder what is the basis for such a high estimate. Marco polo (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

According to our article on Jews, James Carroll is the source for Jews constituting 10% of the population, although I've heard 9% said in the name of Josephus. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Gospel According to Luke, Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem to be counted. Is there any record of this count? Woogee (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The question of "Luke's census" has been perennially rehashed numerous times over the past few centuries, with debates over the year of Jesus' birth, whether Quirinius was governor twice or only once, etc. etc. The exact occasion referred to in Luke is not attested in Roman historical sources. AnonMoos (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither James Carroll nor Josephus is really a reliable source on this question. Marco polo (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Parental rights of a rapist

This question may seem bizarre, but I am nonetheless curious about this. If a child is conceived (and born) due to a rape, does the rapist himself (or herself) have any parental rights to the child at all? Or does the rape act itself somehow automatically preclude/bar/invalidate any claim to parental rights? It would seem a bizarre circumstance where a rape victim would actually have to share custody of the child with his or her rapist. But, I can see where a rapist might actually make a legal claim to parental rights. This question is general and relates to the state of the law in the United States. Also, as a side note, I think that I may have heard some such claim on the TV news recently regarding the Phillip Garrido / Jaycee Dugard case. And, it also brings to mind the Fritzl case in Austria. So, I guess my question is not as academic as it may seem at first blush. Any insights? Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC))

I don't know of any specific laws about this, but the usual principle is that the interests of the child are paramount. It would probably not be considered in the interests of a child to be put in the custody of a convicted rapist (if they weren't convicted then, as far as the law is concerned, the rape didn't happen). However, it may be in the interests of the child for them to know their father, so they might have supervised visits or something (those visits would, for a few years at least, take place in prison, of course). In the specific cases you mention, the children were brought up with the rapist. Often it is considered in the interests of the child to make any changes to their lives as gradual as possible, even if their old life was horrible. That could mean they would be allowed to see the person they have been brought up by for their own psychological health, rather than due to any parental rights. Those visits would only happen for a short time (getting gradually less and less frequent), though. Of course, once the child is 18 (or whatever the age of majority is in the jurisdiction in question) they can make their own mind up. --Tango (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Think the father was denied most or all parental rights in this case: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/01/nyregion/grandparent-keeps-rape-victim-s-baby.html -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the laws would vary from place to place, but even forgetting the rape situation, wouldn't a convicted and imprisoned felon typically have many rights taken away or reduced, including parental rights? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To - Baseball Bugs ... I am not sure that I understand what you are asking. Are you under the impression that all incarcerated felons lose their parental rights automatically? Or am I misinterpreting your question? Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC))

Not automatically, as far as I know, but it would be taken into account. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Also ... for the sake of this discussion, it need not be assumed that the rapist is jailed. I am sure that there are many instances where rapists might get some other form of punishment (e.g., probation, etc.) ... and/or might not even get convicted at all (i.e., they might be factually guilty of the rape, but not legally so). (64.252.68.102 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC))

What sentence they get shouldn't be relevant, although I would be surprised at anyone not getting a custodial sentence for rape. The UK sentencing guidelines say "Rape is always a serious crime. Other than in wholly exceptional circumstances, it calls for an immediate custodial sentence." Apparently 98% of rapes in 2000 were given immediate custodial sentences. If they aren't convicted, then they are innocent as far as the law is concerned. The child's interests would probably take priority over the rapist's right to be considered innocent unless proven guilty, but only if there was significant evidence of guilt and but that would be at a judge's discretion rather than anything written down in law. --Tango (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is indeed relevant: it is far different to have a parent (on probation) who is "out and about" and lives in the child's immediate neighborhood ... versus a parent (incarcerated) who lives in a prison 500 miles away or three states over. Also, many forms of rape (e.g., statutory, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, etc.) are not punished as severely as 1st degree aggravated rape. When a 20-year-old boyfriend statutorily "rapes" (i.e., has consensual sex with) his 16-year-old girlfriend ... this is punished far differently than a midnight-stalker crazed lunatic who rapes a complete stranger at gunpoint in an alley. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC))

It makes a difference to the people involved, certainly, but it doesn't make a difference to whether or not the rapist is entitled to see his child. In the UK, "rape" is a specific offence and, as I said, almost always carries with it a prison sentence. Having consensual sex with a 16-year-old isn't illegal here, since 16 is the age of consent, but having sex with a child aged 13 to 15 wouldn't be rape, but "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" or something, and does indeed carry a lesser sentence (in fact, it isn't prosecuted very often). If the child is 12 or under, that's statutory rape and you would almost certainly go to jail. --Tango (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer Bug's question: I can't comment about all states, or even what the majority rule is, but I know of at least one state that terminates all parental rights for a conviction of rape, but does not do so simply because of a crime. Most criminals, even heinous ones, would not have parental rights extinguished except if the abuse occurred to the child. I also know of at least one state that gives no parental rights to the child of a rapist (if the mother is the victim). I'll try to find some specific citations. Shadowjams (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Texas family code, Sec. 161.001(1)(L) - Termination of rights; as for the never giving of rights, I can't find it there, but I know that other states have similar provisions. Shadowjams (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Aha. That's why I asked the question (I did not assert it as fact). Logic would tell you that if the father is in prison for a long stretch, it is not practical for him to have normal parental rights, since he is not allowed to leave, and exposing kids to a prison (to visit him) would probably not be allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Some prisons have special play rooms for prisoners to meeting with their young children in a safe environment that won't scar the child for life. It is unlikely such an arrangement would ever be used in the case of rape, though. --Tango (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to all for the above feedback and discussion ... it was very helpful ... and much appreciated. Thanks! (64.252.68.102 (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

Can someone link to (or create) a map of countries of Europe as for a child?

Just as books for children first starting to read have very little text, which itself is as simple as possible ("the dog is small, the cat is big") can someone link to a simplified map of Europe, as for a child, which simple has each country in a different solid color and not text or features other than the names of the countries, NOT abbreviated. I've seen many maps that fit my requirements, except for this last point: ALL the ones I could find assume you already know the country and so that it is fair to abbreviate it, or maybe just put a number correspondig to/a line connecting It directly with a legend. I feel this unnecessarily complicates things, makes it hard to learn the name of the countries. Is there a map somewhere (or could you create one) which is large enough for each country actually to contain it's own name in readable type? Some near misses:
[28] (closest to what I have in mind; problems with this one: not all countries colored, several abbreviated).
[29] (not all countries labelled; I don't like that some adjacent countries have the same color) there are several other near misses, and them some real ugly ones where the names go way outside the border of the smaller countries, it is hard to tell which country is which. I would really like each name WELL inside its borders, even if that means the whole map has to be relatively big or the font relatively smaller (shouldn't be tiny though...)... Thank you for anything like that you might know of or be able to create for me :). Best wishes... 89.204.153.66 (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I am posting this at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop for you. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In a lot of cases, it might be hard to fit in the names "Luxembourg" and "Liechtenstein" at a readable font size unless the names are abbreviated.... AnonMoos (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Right. A map of Europe would need to be several meters (or at least 10 feet) in length and width if you wanted the label for a country like Liechtenstein to fit within that tiny country's borders in a readable (but still rather minuscule) type size. Even labeling a country like Montenegro within that country's borders would require a map larger than a standard book page. Marco polo (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A child might understand a color coded key down below. "The blue country is Luxembourg, the green and white striped country is..." if the target age is old enough, say 6 or 7.209.244.187.155 (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not make your own map of Europe? I'm sure you can find a totally blank map with just country outlines - like this one. Use an image editor to add colours and text as needed. Astronaut (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As for tiny countries, how important to your students is it that you include Andorra, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican city? Astronaut (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Move to commons tag for other-language Wikipedias?

Sorry, I know this is probably not the right place to put this, but is there an international {{Move to commons}} tag for other-language Wikipedias? I've found some images on other Wikis that are free-use, but don't know how to tag them properly. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Danger of the "you can, if you want, attitude"

Does some psychologist at least disapprove the "you can, if you want, attitude" preached by many films (and many people), since in some instances it can lead to unreasonable risk taking? Or do all psychologist consider positive thinking always positive? Just imagine the case of a gambler who thinks positive - he would gamble even more.--Quest09 (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Ehrenreich's last book (Bright-sided etc) seems to fit the bill perfectly. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The gambler analogy doesn't fit, because he can't control whether he wins or not (unless he has arranged to have the match fixed, in which case it isn't gambling). What he can do, if he wants, is to decide whether to gamble or not. As to whether a risk is "unreasonable", that's up to the risk-taker to decide. The "you can, if you want, attitude" is about empowering oneself to make one's own decisions about how to run one's life, instead of constantly submitting to nannies and busybodies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is totally valid. Nobody controls if they win or not, in the end. If you prefer a different analogy, suppose it's a soldier whose "think positive" attitude makes him take risks that are viewed as unreasonable by more skeptical people. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Those folks are often called "heroes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Only if they achieve, or try to achieve, something the speaker considers valuable, risking only their own life, when another reasonable option was not available. A soldier who risks his life to rescue a child from a burning building? Generally considered a hero. A soldier who decides not to double check the identities of the vehicles in the distance, and fires a missile because he's sure he can identify the enemy by the sounds of the engines? Not a hero. Goodbye Red Cross. 86.146.195.12 (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the OP is missing the point of the "you can if you want" axiom. The more complete way to say it is, "If you think you can, you can; if you think you can't, you can't." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But that's clearly not true, which is the point. No self-respecting system would accept it as an axiom. Quite apart from the well-studied effect whereby those who can't think they can, and those who can think they can't do it as well as others, there are some things that you just can't do, no matter how much you think you can. For every person who tries and succeeds against all received wisdom, there are dozens who still fail and (if they've bought this crap) think they have only themselves to blame. When in reality, some people are never going to be able to sprint at an Olympic level, or get a genuine masters degree, or fly unaided by technology. Wishing does not make it so.

A much healthier phrase would be "Try hard for the things you want, and be happy with what you achieve. If you want neither the process nor the outcome, do something else." The ridiculous phrase you quote is positively harmful: it suggests we all live in the Matrix, it emphasises outcome over process, and it suggests failure to do something, no matter how much luck was involved, is all your fault. If I think I can beat the house at roulette, that doesn't mean I can. It doesn't even make it likely. If I think I can't sing, but someone convinces me to have a go, I might find I can. Certainly getting good at it would require work, but my lack of confidence doesn't ensure I can't do it. 86.146.195.12 (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The reverse axiom is to give up before you try, to "settle for what you can get", which means you'll never progress. How is that any better? And lack of confidence, self-doubt, certainly can erode your ability to succeed. I'm thinking of a line from Chariots of Fire. Harold Abrahams: "I don't run to take beatings. I run to win. If I can't win, I won't run." Girlfriend: "If you don't run, you won't win." I say again, the roulette wheel analogy is false, because you can't control the outcome unless you can cheat somehow. But the outcome of personal effort in some activity is not predetermined. You should read some of the comments attributed to Teddy Roosevelt and others about the "power of persistence", which can trump talent and presupposed superiority. Thinking you can, in some enterprise that you have some measure of control, does not ensure success, but it makes it more possible. Thinking you cannot will almost certainly ensure defeat. For a simple example, consider climbing Mt. Everest. Mallory and Irvine thought they could climb it, and they were (apparently) wrong, but they gave it their best effort. Hillary and Tenzing also thought they could climb it, and they were right. You or I might look at Mt. Everest and say, "I can't climb that." Guess what - we're right. But not because we can't climb it for some inherent, predetermined reason. We're right because we're not willing to make the effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there's some confusion over words. "You can succeed" is not the same thing as "you will succeed." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm also reminded of a ref desk question from many months ago that asked why someone being shot by firing squad is tied to a post or whatever. The OP asked, "Wouldn't most people be resigned to their fate?" That's the mentality proposed above. If you resign yourself to dying, then you'll die. If you struggle to get away, you will probably still die, but maybe something will happen and you'll be able to get away. As Han Solo said, "Never tell me the odds." If you don't try at all, you've sealed your fate. If you try, you've at least got a chance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

look, we are dealing with aphorisms or affirmations here, not factual truths. There's a value (of sorts) to convincing yourself that things will work to your advantage, because if you convince yourself of that, you're likely to work harder and be more persistent, and those qualities lead towards success. it's more in the order of a self-affirming prophecy than some kind of cosmic rule, but people are not noted for their ability to distinguish between those two things. As the old saying goes "God helps those who help themselves", so if prayer helps you get down to business then - by all means - pray. There's no problem here (except in the minds of philosophers who irrationally insist that reason should come first in the world...) --Ludwigs2 08:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The original question was basically whether some psychologists disagree with the idea of taking risks. If they do, they should surrender their license, as they are engaging in suppressing self-actualization. Someone who never takes a risk has already "died" in some sense. Another old saying: "The coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave taste of death but once." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No-one told me I was dead. When does the craving for brains kick in? Vimescarrot (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Be sure and let us know. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, why do you keep intentionally misrepresenting the original poster's question as you prattle? Nobody disagrees with the general idea of taking risks. The question was about the ceaselessly positive attitude recommended by crazies like Anthony Robbins leading to unreasonable risk taking. Or, to quote the subtitle of the book mentioned by TomorrowTime, whose post was the only post in this entire thread that answered the original poster's question, whether the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America. If you have a reference to cite about this, go for it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical monarch numbering

Since King Arthur is legendary, if a future British monarch were to have the same name, he would be Arthur I, not Arthur II, correct? But what if a future British monarch were named Alfred? Would he be Alfred I or Alfred II? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The numbering starts from the Norman invasion, so Alfred is not included. That's why all those early Edwards and Edwins don't have numbers. (e.g. Edward the Confessor, Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr). We don't get an Edward I until 1272. 86.146.195.12 (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

An Arthur or an Alfred would likely have no number at all; until such time as a second one came along, at which point they'd restrospectively rename the first one "Arthur/Alfred I". Queen Victoria will never be known as "Victoria I" until a second Victoria ascends the throne. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember that legendary isn't the same as non-existant: Historical basis for King Arthur. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

DOMINE SALVAM FAC REGINAM NOSTRAM VICTORIAM PRIMAM: it's not true that Victoria has never been "Victoria I". Marnanel (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
"What, never? Well, hardly ever". Anyway, that's in Latin, so it doesn't count. But kudos for tracking it down. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. That clears it up. 129.174.184.114 (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"William The First was the first of our kings

Not counting Ethelreds, Egberts and things..."

Eleanor Farjeon Kings and Queens (1932) Alansplodge (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the numbering is now a royal prerogative, i.e. the monarch gets to pick the number. That's why Liz is Elizabeth II even for commonwealth realms that did not exist during the reign of Elizabeth I. Indeed, we have an article on the lawsuit that establishes that right at MacCormick v Lord Advocate. Sometimes I'm amazed at the power of WP:WHAAOE. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• The current heir to the throne, Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, is expected to become King Charles III. He could, of course, choose the name Arthur, or George VII. But if he used his father's name, would he be King Philip the Second as there has arguably been a King Philip I ? --Sussexonian (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• He was a sort of half-king. His kingship lasted only for as long as his wife was Queen, and as long as they were married; if they divorced, or she died, that would be the end of his reign. As the conditions of his reign did not meet the normal expectation of a king (i.e. king for life, barring abdication), that probably explains why he's not normally counted as a king of England. I think it's very unlikely Charles would choose Philip as his regnal name; maybe if he became king a short time after the death of his father (which would mean Philip died a short time before Elizabeth, or even together), but not otherwise. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Philip's kingship, we've had a lengthy discussion on the matter here. In a nutshell, he was a monarch both de facto and de iure. His position was not unusal at that time; his own grandfather and his great-grandfather (Mary I's grandfather) both reigned together with their wives. Mary's and Philip's ancestor reigned over Castile as Ferdinand V until his wife's death but was still recognized as Ferdinand V by his successors who reigned as Ferdinand VI and Ferdinand VII. There are many other examples (Philip himself being numbered after his grandfather who reigned in his wife's right, etc). If Charles wished to reign as Philip II, history would be fine with that. William could then reign as Philip III. But I don't think that taking a number after a monarch who fought a war against his own (former) kingdom and who was married to a Bloody Mary is a good choice. Surtsicna (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fall of Dutch government

It sounds more dramatic than it is but still I don't understand why the government is considered to have fallen and new elections needed - if the Balkenende government still has a majority even without Labor's participation in the coalition. Isn't a majority enough? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

They don't have a majority. Why did you think they do? See Dutch general election, 2006#Results - the CDA got 27.3%, Labour got 21.3% and CU got 4%. That gave the coalition a total of 52.6%, a small majority. With Labour leaving, they only have 31.3%, nowhere near a majority. --Tango (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps the confusion is over the meaning of "majority". A majority is 50%, it doesn't mean the party with the most seats - that's a plurality. A plurality is not enough. --Tango (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have asked this last night when I could have linked to the article I read. It was probably a reporter's mistake and removed by now. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Who were the Knights of Anara?

Recently found a metal pin and attached certificate presented to my Grandfather for serving three months on a Safety Patrol, that he "has repeated singly the Salute to the Flag," "has subscribed to the Knight's Pledge," and "has passed the examination on the State Traffic Code as supplied by the Automobile Club of Michigan and is now a Life Member of the Knights of Anara." My grandfather's brother remembers when they were growing up, around 8 years old that they were presented with these pins. The certificate is signed by somebody Rounds, who was a Grand Knight. There is also an address - 139 Bagley Avenue, Detroit, MI. Interestingly, there is also a Pledge on the back, it goes as follows:

As an arrow from the bow To its objective straight does go, So we loyal knights and true Do the job we have to do Protect the children, help the blind, Refuse dope and liquor which impairs the mind And we will run with flying feet To help small children cross the street.

I couldn't find anything on them in my search. Hope that you can help because I think this is something that I would like to find out about my Grandfather.

Thanks, Joshua Winchell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwinchell (talk • contribs) 23:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the name "Anara" right because all I get is Starfleet roleplaying groups.hotclaws 23:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

youkai wearing a mask or a veil

In the Natsume Yuujinchou, several fairly human-looking youkai are shown wearing a veil or a Noh mask over their faces. Veil/mask is white, with a kanji or a pictogram on it. The face under the mask looks like a normal human face, not like a Kuchisake-onna's or similar. Now, the question is, does this mask or veil have any meaning in the Japanese tradition/folklore/customs, or is it just because Midorikawa-sensei chose to depict them that way? I do not recall seeing veiled youkai in ukiyo-e, but maybe my memory fails me. So is it something symbolic and meaningful, or is it not? --Dr Dima (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember seeing members of a gagaku ensemble wearing white square veils that covered the fronts of their faces, but I can't find any similar image on the Internet. Would you happen to have an image of what you are talking about? TomorrowTime (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

February 21

No Winter Olympic boycott 1980-84

If the nations involved really cared, why didn't they boycott those games, or is it that the Winter Games came first in the years involved, or further, that the Winter Games aren't as big? Or was it more the location of the games that was relevant? Aaronite (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the article Olympic boycotts, the rationale for boycotting the Moscow games in 1980 is stated as being in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The next summer games, in 1984, were held in Atlanta in the U.S. The article says that the Soviet countries and their friends were boycotting on the grounds of general U.S. negativity towards them. There is also a good likelihood of "tit for tat" going on, too. (I suspect there are sources for such a conclusion, but without them, this last bit is WP:OR) In each case, the location for the games is the key. Bielle (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(Just to note, the 1984 Olympics were in Los Angeles. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

Yes. The U.S. boycotted the 1980 Moscow games, a direct slap at the Olympic spirit (just one more of Jimmy Carter's brilliant moves while President), and the Soviets in turn boycotted our 1984 games in L.A., thus practically ensuring a pile of gold for the Americans. The winter games will be in Russia next time, and figure skating scoring will be among many interesting topics, but hopefully there won't be a boycott. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I note the replies so far refer to the Summer games. In 1984 the Winter Olympics were in Sarajevo, while the 1980 ones were in Lake Placid, USA. For the 1980 ones I guess the timing was important, while the 1984 games - why would the Russians boycott an Olympics which were being held in a place which at the time was part of the Communist bloc? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Sarajevo was then in Yugoslavia, which although it was communist, was emphatically not Soviet, though Washington found it hard to see the difference. Moscow on the other hand tended to view it as pro-Western. --ColinFine (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The 1980 Winter Games would have taken place less than a couple of months after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, so presumably the US hadn't developed its stupid boycott policy and the USSR would have had no reason to boycott the games. In 1984, while Yugoslavia was a Communist country it was of an independent sort, certainly not part of the USSR's bloc, and maintained decent relationships with both superpowers so no need for a boycott. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Carter was probably preoccupied with the Iran situation. And had the CCCP known they were going to lose that hockey game to Team USA, maybe they would have boycotted Lake Placid! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall Yugoslavia was definitely behind the Iron Curtain, which meant politically it was closer to the USSR. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell that to Stalin! AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavia may have been behind the Iron Curtain when it descended in 1946, but Yugoslavia never signed the Warsaw Pact - Tito having begun to distance himself from Stalin in 1948. It was certainly a communist country but it had an independent foreign policy. Albania after 1961 was in the same position. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavia began the Non-Aligned Movement, the idea of which was to not take sides in the cold war conflict. It was on speaking terms with both the USA and the Soviet union. Anecdotally, Yugoslav passports were a precious boon for counterfeiters because a Yugoslav passport was supposedly the only one that could get you to both the US and the SU without much hassle. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Tito might have disagreed, as well! Woogee (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin + new 9/11 investigation?

Hello everyone, I've got a question that's very important to me personally (well, it will become very important in 2012). Just a couple days ago, I've heard rumors that Sarah Palin had recently questioned the 9/11 comission findings and called for a second investigation of the 9/11 attacks. Fortunately these rumors are from an unreliable source, so I'm not giving them too much creedence right now; but I want to really be sure that it's not true, because I don't want to cast my vote for someone who's involved in any way with the 9/11 conspiracist mafia. So could you please confirm or deny this? Thanks in advance, and clear skies to you! 24.23.197.43 (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This link says she called for another investigation back in 2008 before the election she lost. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If Sarah is accusing the Bush administration of some kind of coverup, that would be an interesting twist on things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

ah, me... SP is now officially part of the Fox News crowd, and as such you can reasonably assume that the truth of any of her statements is a function of expediency. Ask not what truth is in her words; ask what truths her words can make. It's too bad - she'd have made a decent political figure if she hadn't gotten caught up in the throws of GOP desperation. --Ludwigs2 06:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

All right-wing commentators will eventually be required to be confined to "Fixed News", as part of the American Extremism Containment policy. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

IP, please clarify. Were you even thinking of voting for SP? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The above is, in my opinion, not a permissible question here. It does not contribute to answering the OP's question; to the contrary, it directs the focus on the editor, and away from the question. Should we remove it? — Sebastian 15:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he's just curious. It's worth pointing out that Palin is not running for anything at the moment, so voting for her or not is a moot question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Available poems of David Diop

David Diop, a Senegalese poet, who is also known for his contribution to the cause of Negritude, left only 17 poems after him (22 according to some sources) as most of his manuscripts were destroyed with him in an air crash in 1960. Does anyone knows which were they? Ganesh Dhamodkar (Talk) 06:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Crossing over from one Indian state to another Indian state

Can a user please give me the answers to the following questions regarding crossing over from one Indian state to another Indian state (e.g. Rajasthan to Uttar Pradesh): 1) Is there a border check point? 2) Does one have to show, for an Indian national some internal Indian identification document, or for a foreigner a passport? 3) Does one have to pay to cross such a border? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Transport across states in India does not usually require identification details. 

Passage is free. However, custom duties are to be paid for certain goods if they are transferred across states.

Indian defaultsort 1

How should this be set? V. Krishnaswamy Iyer. Text reads: Venkatarama Iyer Krishnaswamy Iyer - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Percentage of Americans who have been abroad

What percent of Americans have been outside the USA? What percent have been outside the USA, Canada, and Mexico? If I may say so - shoot me down in flames if you must - but my impression from reading things on the Reference desk is that Americans often find it very difficult to imagine how non-North Americans (even if English-speaking) will see the world from a different perspective, and have a different culture and conventions. 78.146.74.227 (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, only 22% have passports (Source), compared with 71% in the UK. Everyone has trouble imagining what living somewhere else is like, on the whole; I couldn't comment whether Americans have more of a problem with this than anyone else. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what proportion of those had them for military reasons? 89.243.197.22 (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose Americans are at a disadvantage because while we here in Europe are bombarded with non-stop saturation coverage of American cultural materials such as films, tv, books, products, there is little going in the other direction. 89.243.197.22 (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's worth bearing in mind that North Americans have to go a long way. We Brits can just hop on a train or a ferry and suddenly everyone is driving on the wrong side of the road and pretending not to understand when we ask for directions. And it's cheaper to fly from the UK to France than to Scotland...--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a generous excuse to make for Americans, but it doesn't hold when you consider that 60–70% of Australians have passports. Maedin\^talk 15:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Stunned that I have to say this to someone living in England, but Scotland is part of the UK!

ALR (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the comment is supposed to show it can be cheaper to travel abroad than within the UK, ie from England to Scotland or v.v.

In 2008, 30.8 million U.S. citizens traveled overseas. I believe this would include double-counting of people who traveled more than once. There are, I believe, about 280-285 million U.S. citizens (as opposed to 300m+ U.S. residents, legal and illegal). Keep in mind that overseas travel is not really realistic for many Americans. I knew a guy who was in his late 20s and had never been outside of Ohio or Pennsylvania. Not because he wasn't interested in the rest of the world (he had a degree in European History) but because he simply didn't have the time or money and was burdened with the responsibilities of home and family. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Does that count include travel to Mexico, Canada and the Caribbean? Woogee (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't counting trips to Canada or Mexico (see the web link). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Having a passport or not does not reflect the number of American military who served overseas. At least when I was in the military and served overseas, a passport was not required. Woogee (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

To respond to Maedin (and others), I want to say that it is understandable why Australians would be more likely to want to travel overseas than Americans. Australia is a thinly populated country, most of it desert, with just a handful of major cities, all on the coast. The United States has a great deal more regional variety, both in culture and in physical environment. Americans do not need to go to the trouble or expense of leaving the country to experience a very different setting. When I travel from Boston, in the northeastern United States, to California, I have the feeling of being in a foreign country. The feeling of foreignness for me in California is only slightly weaker than my feeling of foreignness in England, for example. And there are many such "foreign" parts of the United States for me. That said, I have a passion for travel and have made it a priority to visit countries very different from the United States. Not everyone has this passion for travel, and, as others have said, many Americans cannot afford to indulge such a passion if they have it. Finally, I want to disagree with the person who posted the question. I think that there are a number of Americans on the RefDesk who appreciate that people from other countries will have different experiences and perspectives. I like to think that I am one of these Americans. I would agree that travel has contributed to my openness. Marco polo (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't argue that specific Americans certainly do travel and have worked to gain an understanding and knowledge of cultures different from their own, but the percentage is extremely low. When travelling in the States, I am continually surprised by the number of people who don't know where the UK is, or what is is, and adults with (as far as I know) all of their mental faculties intact actually ask me, "Do they speak English in England?" Is this level of ignorance typical in any other Western country? Or any civilised country at all? Maedin\^talk 12:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Burma-Bangladesh border

The people on opposite sides generally look so different from each other. But there only seems to be a river separating them. How did the two sides manage to divide so well rather than mix?

Cdg1 (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

People generally would not mix because of differences in languages and religions, no matter how close they live. However there would be a small percentage of people who would intermix. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree that people on either side of the border look so different. Here is a photo of Bangla boys in Chittagong with a puppy. Here is a photo of Rakhine boys, across the border in Burma, with a chicken. Do the two groups of boys look so different? Is there at least one boy in each photo who would not look out of place in the other photo? Then there are the Marma people, who live in Bangladesh but are closely related to the Rakhine across the border in Burma. Here is a photo of Marma and Bangla people in Bangladesh. Do you feel sure that you can distinguish the Bangla men in this picture from the Marma men? The man with the beard is probably Bangla, but what about the men behind him? Is it so easy to tell who's who? The fact is that people along this border have been mixing for thousands of years. You will find people in Bangladesh who look very much like people in Burma, and vice versa. You will also find people who look like they could belong to either group. Marco polo (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you might look at a map, and identify the Naga Hills, which are a fairly significant barrier between the two countries. I'm not sure what part is separated by "only a river," but it isn't the major border feature. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty of crossing the border caused no end of problems at the start of the Burma Campaign in WWII since there were only mountainous jungle tracks connecting Burma to India, as it was then. Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Which Christian theologian said "there are infants a span long in hell?"

Which Christian theologian said "there are infants a span long in hell," and in which of their writings is this statement found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgertutt (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A Google search suggests that John Calvin said "there are babies a span long in hell" but I haven't discovered the source. 58.147.58.28 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And this website suggests that it is a false attribution. 58.147.58.28 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Calvin believed that the efficacy of the "irresistable grace" of Christ's atonement is limited to only God's "unconditionally elected" ones, does it not follow that he did believe that non-elect infants who die as infants will go to hell, whether or not such a quote by him can be found in literature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgertutt (talk • contribs) 15:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know where his notion of "the elect" came from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it derives from the book of revelations which (under some interpretations) seems to claim that only 144,000 people will actually be 'saved' at the end of days. This lead to all sorts of speculations about who those 144,000 were and what happened to the rest of humanity (keep in mind that 144,000 would have been a fairly large number of people in those times - estimates of the population of Jerusalem at the time of Christ suggest 80,000 permanent residents with influxes of during pilgrimage times to maybe 200,000, and Jerusalem was likely the largest city in the middle east at the time. --Ludwigs2 17:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Seems to me the JW's used to cite that number also, and had to revise their thinking when their total membership exceeded that figure. The risk of trying to read a highly symbolic book literally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

actually, I think this issue was resolved back in the '90s, with the formulation of the principle of Theological Inflation: 144,000 'year 0010' humans translates to 281,362,439.76 'year 2010' humans (±34,631.8, and adjusting for intervening plague years and other 'bust' markets). Most theoconomists find a certain amount of Theological Inflation acceptable as a spiritual stimulus, so long as it is not accompanied by any significant devaluation of the soul (a point which Marxist Theosophy denounces as paternalistic and unrealistic). just an FYI... --Ludwigs2 18:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's some info that was a big help to me on this subject. "A great introductory series to ultimate reconciliation. J. Preston Eby does a thorough job covering many aspects of the topic. Fundamental reading for any person interested in studying universalism from a solid biblical perspective. Highly Recommended!" http://www.godfire.net/eby/saviour_of_the_world.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgertutt (talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if Calvin believed it or not (as it is somewhat of a Catholic belief), but those who believe in Limbo, specifically Limbo of Infants, would hold that *all* people who die as infants prior to baptism would go to hell. -- 174.21.254.47 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The question left unanswered is "what is a Span (length)?" and the answer is "about 9 inches". If it seems cruel that God would send babies to Hell, keep in mind that Calvin (or somebody) made this stuff up. It's not fair to blame God for the stupid ideas people come up with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

1984 (Orwell's book)

The article says that global atomic war occurred before the Party's ascent to power, but it doesn't mention where America's annexation of England fits into that history. When did it occur, before the global nuclear war, before the Party gained power, or after both? --J4\/4 <talk> 14:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

According to chapter 3 of Goldstein's Book, it was in the mid to late 1950's that "some hundreds of bombs were dropped on industrial centers, chiefly in European Russia, Europe, and North America". The 1950s seem to have been extremely turbulent in the 1984-verse, with lots of revolutions, wars, struggles between opposing revolutionary factions, etc., but we're not really told the specifics... AnonMoos (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be of interest that during WWII there were a very large number of American airfields and American personnel in the eastern parts of the UK, and similarly in the Cold War. Even before 1948 when Orwell wrote it, a lot of American films were shown. So it was not a great leap of imaginination to imagine that this process would continue to its conclusion. 89.243.197.22 (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But which happened first, the Party's rise to power or America's annexation of England? --J4\/4 <talk> 15:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I was going to give the phrase and find an outlink to it, but whaddayano, we even have an article: Unsinkable aircraft carrier. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, where in 1984 is the composition of Oceania's military mentioned? --J4\/4 <talk> 15:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You will find the answers by reading the book, if you can find them anywhere. It's not very long. 89.243.197.22 (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the book and couldn't find them. --J4\/4 <talk> 15:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Then nobody knows, and even Orwell himself may not have thought about that not even in his imagination. The name of the article, which took me a while to find, is Nineteen Eighty-Four. If you are in a country where it is out of copyright you could try getting an online copy of the text and search through that, but probably you won't find anything else. The last resort would be trying to find any draft copies or writer's notes where it might be mentioned. 89.243.197.22 (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If memory serves, the book doesn't give a real historical account, just the "official" story. There is no way to know how much, if at all, the official story matches reality. --Tango (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the book was intended to be a satire of sorts. Trying to apply a fine-tooth comb to the continuity of its specific details was probably not the point Orwell was trying to make. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - the book is more a critique of Britain in 1948 (just transpose the last two figures) than an attempt to predict the future. For example the "Ministry of Truth" represents the Ministry of Information, whose role was to stop people getting information. Central government in the UK had taken on a huge amount of extra powers during WWII and (Orwell suggests) used the Cold War as an excuse to retain them in peace time. Alansplodge (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Goldstein's Book gives info which goes a long way beyond official Oceania propaganda -- but of course, it was written by the Thought Police. And 1984 is quite a bit more than a roman à clef satire of 1948 Britain... AnonMoos (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it was written by the Thought Police, I consider it official propaganda, just of a very subtle variety. My point about not knowing how true it is still holds. --Tango (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you write a Prequel, OP, and then you can decide what happened. 89.243.87.3 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Need some specific help regarding a short story by Haruki Murakami

Hello refdesk. Does anyone have Murakami's The Elephant Vanishes collection of stories at hand? I need some help - in the story The Dancing Dwarf, there is a passing mention of an alcoholic beverage called メカトール酒 (let's say something like "mekator vine" or something similar) I didn't find it in any dictionaries, and as I suspected, Google only gives hits related to Murakami, so I'm assuming it's a made up drink. How was this rendered in the English translation? It's mentioned as the drink the old man in the bar drinks. Any help would be appreciated. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Inequalities of "equal" primogeniture

The engagement of the Crown Princess of Sweden made me think about the future of the House of Bernadotte. Daniel will not be Crown Prince of Sweden and I can partially understand that (though wives of heirs apparent share their spouse's title), but how is that justified? Daniel will probably not be king either (though wives of kings are queens and Carl XVI Gustaf's wife is queen). That's why I don't like equal primogeniture - it's not equal. Husbands of queens regnant are not styled as kings because it is presumed that the masculine title of king outranks the feminine title of queen. Is that gender equality? Is this inequality somehow justified in Sweden?

Also, the Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland's future husband won't be prince of Sweden. On the other hand, it wouldn't make sense for her brother's wife not to be princess (assuming her brother marries with the consent). However, if the future Duchess of Värmland is made a princess, the issue of inequality will (or should) definitely arise.

This equal primogeniture thing simply doesn't make the monarchy gender-equal, let alone the fact that monarchy is all about inequality among people. If they keep going towards "equal" monarchies, they'll all end up living in elective monarchies - especially when they start wondering about age discrimination and what makes an older sibling more fit to rule than a younger sibling. Surtsicna (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And have you got a question for the reference desk, or did you just want to make a speech? --ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think what you're missing is that the way royal titles are given out, i.e. who gets to be called a Prince, Princess, Duke etc. is not governed by the Swedish Act of Succession, nor by the "equal primogeniture" of Sweden. All that law and that principle decide is who becomes head of state. The royal, princely and noble titles are still handed out according to old, unequal and male-preference rules. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The question for the reference desk is (as already written above): is this inequality somehow justified in Sweden? Is it justified in any country? Has any country decided to be "equal" all the way and forget the queen-is-lesser-than-king notion?

Regarding the old, unequal and male-preference rules that govern titles, isn't changing such (perhaps even unwritten) rules far easier than changing a constitution? Surtsicna (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

These cases are the same in UK, not just in Sweden. Husband of Queen Elizabeth II is not a king but a prince consort. Husband of the Princess Royal is not a prince either. Both husbands of Princess Anne had declined taking on a title). You cannot talk about equality when talking about monarchy. Monarchy is an institution based on birthright and governed by traditions. It's all about inequality and privileges.

You have to keep in mind that when a queen succeeds the throne in her own right, the country is allowing a change of dynasty, or house. In most cultures the children still follow the surname of their father. It is no exemption when a male would marry into a royal house and produce heirs. This practice had been frowned upon because most royal houses wanted to keep its succession in the male direct line, and most of all maintain sovereign. This was how some of the royal dynasties got absorbed into others either intentionally or by fate.

Imagine in this modern day the Crown Princess of Sweden got engaged with Prince William of the UK (ignoring parliamentary disapprovals), and allowing Prince William to be called King once Queen Victoria ascends the throne. Wouldn't that make William king of Sweden? I'm sure that won't go over too well with the Swedes. --Kvasir (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri translation

Hi. I was wondering if someone might help me find the orinal Italian for the Dante quotation "beauty awakens the soul to act". Many thanks! Flaming Ferrari (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no original Italian. That quote appears nowhere in Dante. (You can verify this by noting that whenever the quote is attributed, no one cites the specific Canto and line.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.88.122 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be from Gilbert Imlay's work The Emigrants "Beauty awakes, expands the glowing heart / And prompts the soul to act its noblest part" meltBanana 04:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the author is quoting a poem there, so it might still be by someone else.--Cam (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The ascription to Dante might be based upon a pithy simplification of La Vita Nuova as the sentiment is kind of what the whole work is about but specifically these lines from chapter XX:

"Beauty may appear, in a wise lady, / so pleasant to the eyes, that in the heart, / is born a desire for pleasant things: / which stays so long a time in that place, / that it makes the spirit of Love wake. / And likewise in a lady works a worthy man."

original:

"Bieltate appare in saggia donna pui, /che piace a gli occhi sì, che dentro al core / nasce un disio de la cosa piacente; / e tanto dura talora in costui, / che fa svegliar lo spirito d'Amore. / E simil face in donna omo valente."

meltBanana 15:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Financial Times article this weekend

There was a full-page front-page article in one of the sections of the Financial Times British edition this weekend, the 20/21st February. The title was something like "Show/Get/Find Me The Oscars/Money". Does anyone know what it was, or where I could read it online? I meant to buy it but forgot. I've looked at the ft com site, have not been able to see it. 92.28.224.34 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Australians' high rate of travel

In a question above about how many Americans have traveled overseas, Maedin makes the comment that 60%-70% of Australians have passports, versus about 25% of Americans. Most Americans don't have passports because they don't have the time or money for overseas travel. Yet, according to official figures, Americans have a higher per-capita GDP than Australians. Despite this, Australians have a much higher rate of overseas travel. In my youth, when I was hitchhiking around Europe, I probably ran into more young Australian travelers than young Americans, even though Europe is further from Australia than the United States, and even though there were at the time about 20 times as many Americans as Australians in the world. I've always wanted to know how so many Australians, especially young Australians, come up with the time and money to do this. Most young Americans struggle to find a job, hold a low-wage job that would not pay for travel, or work hard just to cover their educational and living expenses. Most young Americans' parents cannot afford to pay for their child to travel through Europe. How do young Australians do it? Marco polo (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It may partially be that Americans travel inside their country when they do travel. The US is the 3rd largest country by area, as well as the 3rd largest country by population. It's possible for a US citizen to see all kinds of different cultures and climates without having to get a passport.

If you exclude Alaska, Australia is bigger than the continental US Alansplodge (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, Australia is situated near a lot of places that don't speak English, so I bet that Australian tourists tend to travel far. Paul Stansifer 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of Aussie travellers in Thailand and Indonesia I believe. Alansplodge (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps also the longer normal vacation time leaves Australians more able to travel. But personally I think the reason is more cultural. Americans tend to think that a lot of things worth seeing are in the US and that everywhere outside of it is kind of a dump, or super expensive, or otherwise not an optimal travel choice. I think there's also a "Middle Kingdom" type attitude to all of this, that America has the best of the world within its borders so there's no need to leave it. Australians, and Brits, on the other hand, do not have such opinions about their home countries. And there's kind of a point: if Americans want to go skiing, there are many great places in the US rocky mountains. If Australians or Brits want to, they pretty much have to look abroad, and Canada is a common choice (maybe the US is too, I don't know). There's a bit of a sense of adventure that may be left over from empire days, but I won't try and analyse that too much. Also, I think a much higher proportion of Australians are first or second generation with significant family ties to people in other parts of the world, which is less frequently the case with Americans. What did surprise me about America (well Texas at least) is the very high rate of internal migration. A large portion of the Americans I knew there had moved from another state, usually quite a distant state. Maybe that's more of a university thing, but I think it might be a more general pattern: while Americans shy away from international migration (and travel), people move around internally a great deal, perhaps more than Australians. TastyCakes (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(NNPOV) When Americans do travel overseas, many of them seem to treat the rest of the world like Disneyland: as a spectacle to gawp at rather than other cultures to respect and understand (which is why a lot of the world doesn't like American tourists!). BTW, we do have ski fields in Australia, and if we want more the best in the world are just over the way on the South Island of New Zealand... FiggyBee (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to slight New Zealand skiing, I was just looking for an explanation for the alarming numbers of Aussie lifties at Banff and Lake Louise ;) TastyCakes (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well for the really keen skiiers, you can get two ski seasons a year by hitting up the northern hemisphere, I suppose... :) FiggyBee (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Australian here who just got home from 3 months overseas yesterday. :) Many young Australians have links within a generation or two to another country (if you look at Immigration to Australia#Country of Birth of Australian Residents, you'll see that almost a quarter of Australians were not born here). This means many Australians can work to supplement their income while travelling, either because they have nationality rights or because of working holiday visa treaties. I have several friends who have done exactly that; travelled, spent a few months in one place working, then travelled some more. Australians who were born, or whose parents were born, overseas also probably have more desire to travel than Americans whose great-grandparents grew up just down the road. FiggyBee (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OR here, but I think that when analyzing Americans' travel habits compared to those of residents of other countries, it's hard to overestimate the importance of Americans' crappily low amount of yearly vacation time. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Part of the reason is that, generally speaking, it's cheaper for us to travel overseas than to tour inside our own country. I know many Australians who've been to any o/s country you care to name, but have never visited other states of Australia or their own capital city Canberra. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Law Creating/Eliminating Postal Police

What law created or authorized Postal Police and what could eliminate them?Tarita60680 (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What country are you referring to, please? And could you expand upon the reason you are interested in eliminating them? I mean, no matter where you live, I could answer "what could eliminate them" by saying, "A new law could be passed eliminating the postal police", but I don't think that's exactly the sort of answer you're looking for. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

At a guess, Anthony Comstock might have had something to do with it. See Comstock laws and United States Postal Inspection Service. Tevildo (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the level of inequality greater now than any time in history?

Is the level of inequality greater now than any time in history? How does the level of inequality between the richest and poorest in the world today compare to early industrial, feudal and ancient times? --Gary123 (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this may be a hard question to answer, because;

a) in pure mathematical terms, there are, and have always been, some people who have literally nothing, thus anyone who has anything is infinitely richer.

b) historically, there was often conflation of personal wealth and state wealth for rulers (the full resources of the kingdom were available to a mediaeval king or Roman governor).

c) measuring wealth over time is difficult, because technology means there's more you can do with your wealth today (is a private jet worth more or less than a mediaeval estate? It's simply not comparable).

I think the best measure of "inequality" is how well a society looks after its poor, and how much it holds its rich to account. In those terms, I think that the modern (social democratic) world is the least unequal today it has ever been. FiggyBee (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to be poor, being poor in the U.S.A. is a far sight better than being poor in many other places. We do take care of our poor pretty well nowadays, compared with a hundred years ago when the attitude seemed to be "every man for himself". The safety net is much broader and deeper. And I'm reminded of something Will Rogers said: "We have our poor in America; but they're the richest poor in the world." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My (relatively informed) impression is that the general rich/poor difference hasn't changed much proportionally over time (though in absolute terms the poor are much wealthier than they used to be, and the rich are much, much wealthier). This has to do with the fact that wealth is largely a zero-sum game - the wealthiest 5% or 10% in a society are as wealthy as they are because they extract as much wealth as they can from the other members of society without driving them into desperate poverty (which would result in economic collapse or revolution). --Ludwigs2 08:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Which leads to the question to what area Ludwigs2 is referring by assuming "the poor" are wealthier than they used to be (timeframe?). Can't be global since as has been at all times, there are, as has been pointed out before, humans who have literally nothing. So where's the wealth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by G-41614 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Inequality is more than just rich and poor. Anytime that slavery was a perfectly acceptable institution (i.e. everywhere and anywhere before a few hundred years ago), there would certainly be far more inequality than there is now. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Even in third world countries, the poor have access to better food, farming techniques, medicines, education, shelter and etc than they did 100 years ago. Very few people still exist in pastoral/tribal conditions. please note that even the destitute in western societies are mostly a function of modern advances: a person living a nomadic, homeless, hunter-gatherer existence in (say) 19th century South America or in the American west in the 18th century would not have been considered unusual or problematic. what do you think fur trappers were? It's a sign of our higher expectations that we find such people troubling. --Ludwigs2 17:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

While being poor in the USA is better than being poor in the 3rd world, my understanding is that western Europe treats its poor much better than the USA. --Tango (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It largely depends on who you talk to and how informed they are. For example, if you talk to a person who focuses solely on access to free marijuana as a consideration of "care for the poor" (yes, I'm referring to a person I know), you are going to get a very skewed point of view. -- kainaw™ 16:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As others have hinted above, there are two main issues that make your question difficult to answer:

1. One needs to define what one means by inequality and what exact metric one uses to measure it. See Amartya Sen's On economic inequality and Inequality reexamined for two very accessible accounts of the issues involved and the solutions proposed.
2. Even if one decides on a metric to measure inequality, it is not easy to obtain reliable statistical data to evaluate this metric. This is especially true when we were interested in worldwide and/or historical estimates.

That said, while recognizing these difficulties, we don't need to simply throw up our hands and say, "it's all subjective"!
To address the first problem above: two commonly used metrics to measure income or wealth inequality are the Gini coefficient and Theil index, which you can read about on our wikipedia page. The second problem has been looked at by (among others) Branko Milanovic, an economist at the World Bank, and Angus Maddison, a British economist, who have several papers/books on estimating historical income and inequality levels across nations (these numbers need to be taken with a huge grain of salt though). For example, Milanovic has a recent paper on Global inequality and global inequality extraction ratio: The story of the last two centuries in which he concludes that the worldwide inequality levels did increase from the nineteenth century to mid-1950's and have essentially stabilized since (see Table 2-3 in the paper).
Again, I emphasize that one needs to treat these results with care and be aware of all the caveats before trying to use them as a soundbite or as a basis for normative judgments (do read Sen's books listed above!). But hopefully these links will provide you with a starting point for further research and thought. Abecedare (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC) PS: Another relevant paper: Inequality among World Citizens: 1820-1992, François Bourguignon; Christian Morrisson, The American Economic Review, Vol. 92, No. 4. (Sep., 2002), pp. 727-744. It essentially reaches the same conclusion as the Milanovic paper cited above. Abecedare (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For the US, this article indicates that income inequality has been rising since the 1970s (before which it was declining), however all segments of society have been getting wealthier to some degree. I don't have all the numbers to prove it, but I think it is quite easy to find eras where inequalities were far greater than today. It was institutionalized in Europe under a system of aristocratic rule, and the Gilded Age in the US gave rise to some of the richest individuals in history on a relative scale. Vanderbilt, according to the article, was worth 1.15% of US GDP, which would be $141 billion today if we were to make a (somewhat over simplistic) comparison in today's terms. That said, some places, like Russia, have seen a more recent explosion of income inequality, (in Russia's case, largely seen as being due to the sketchy post-soviet privatisation of huge resource assets to insiders at prices that were a small fraction of their worth (see here). TastyCakes (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

One needs to be careful here: the wealth of the richest individual(s) is a red-herring as far as the computing the Gini coefficient is concerned; if that weren't the case, it would not be a very robust statistic. For example, it would not make an iota of a difference in the computed Gini index if instead of Vanderbilt having ~100 billion dollars, say 1000 different persons had 100 million dollars each (this is the case because binned data is use for computing the statistic, so all that matters is what the total wealth of individuals in, say, the top 5% bin, the 90-95% bin etc; for the US each bin contains a few million people). Also note that that the Gini indexes being cited here are for income inequality, which is distinct from wealth inequality. Abecedare (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's true, and I don't have the numbers to demonstrate the point decisively. But I think the general perception (which I have no reason to disagree with) is that the US economy of the late 1800s and early 1900s was dominated by a few very rich men. Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Ford, Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan and so on, all from the same general time frame. Collectively, I think such men controlled a large amount of the US economy, much larger than any group of similar size today does (but again, I don't have the numbers). If that is the case, I don't think any measure of economic inequality would compute that there is more inequality today than there was at that time. TastyCakes (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clearer earlier: my objection above was solely directed at the methodology, and not your conclusion about inequality trends in US. In fact, the paper Three Centuries Of Inequality In Britain And America discusses the issue in some detail and supports your conclusion. In brief: wealth/income inequality in the US was at its highest in the 1860-1929 period, with temporary drops during the Civil war and WWI. The inequality declined during the 1929-54 period and then started rising again from mid-1970s; although it didn't get as high as the pre-Great Depression days. Hope that helps clarify the picture. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Slang Words for A WW2 German Solider

I don't want to be offensive to anyone, but I need slang words of German Soldiers or German people during the WW2 era. I'm writing a story (sorry no autographs) and I just need some ideas. The definitions for the words too, would be appreciated. Thanks.

Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Slang words used by whom? If you want what other people called the Germans, we have an article on everything: List of terms used for Germans. FiggyBee (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a useful article. I didn't know the Germans themselves came up with "Huns". I wonder what's the German equivalent of "D'oh!" Meanwhile, the article assigns "Kraut" as post WWII. Far as I know, it's a lot older than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I recall from watching German-dubbed episodes of The Simpsons, Homer generally seems to just say "Nein!" for "D'oh!". It's not quite a literal translation but it seems to convey the same kind of sentiment. ~ mazca ^talk 11:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bleah, forgot to mention that, Sorry been detracted by watching the British Academy Film Awards. The slang words to be used by Americans Soldiers, or just Americans. Hee hee. Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the word needs to be a bit insulting but not disgusting, because just picture angry Americans calling the German Soldiers whatever the word is, you know? Haha, I do wonder what the German equivalent of "D'oh" is. Even a German word would be quite well to use, because the irony would just be delicious. Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at the article I linked? "Heinie" seems to be the American equivalent of the British "Jerry". FiggyBee (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I looked at it, so that means that the American's called the Germans that too, "Jerry"? I was using Google Translate and came up with a few things, "Stümper Ballermann." (Amateur Shooter) hee hee. Google helps a lot you know? Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In Alan Brooke's "War Diaries". he refers to the Germans as "the Bosch". I suspect this can only have been used by the generation that served in both conflicts. My parent's generation (Dad was 21 in 1939) used "Jerry" - the connection with "jerry pots" was well known to them whatever the Wikipedea article says. Alansplodge (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it's "the Bosch"? A common slang term for Germans in the WW2 are is "Boche", from the French, with somewhat unclear provenance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to have been two main spellings: the French "Boche" and the British "Bosch" (perhaps the spelling came from the German engineering firm[30]) . Here's a quote from a US nurse[31] (scroll down past the Red Cross letter) using one version and a British regimental history[32] using the other. Here's one with a third spelling from WWII[33] (no slang dictionaries in those days!). Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think American soldiers of WWII were using Google Translate to come up with insults. Perhaps you should do some OR; watch American war films, read contemporary accounts, etc? FiggyBee (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the most common nicknames used by US troops would be hynee and kraut.--92.251.223.13 (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ha, I know they weren't using Google, but the American's I'm writing about know a just bit of German, so they can make up their own insults too, but I'm just curious on what Americans called them. *sigh* Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

US illegal farm worker wages

Can anyone point me to a survey of wages for illegal farm workers in the US? Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not knowing what you're reason for knowing is, I'm not sure if a little WP:OR will work or not. If I remember correctly what my wife has told me, the local illegals that work on dairy farms around me in VT make something like $8-10/hour. Dismas|^(talk) 05:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly vary in different markets (localities) due, e.g. to cost of living differences, etc. Perhaps you could take the wages for legal workers and subtract a certain amount, for an estimate. --Dpr (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dismas. I'm actually interested in the constant that Dpr is referring to — one would assume that illegal workers are paid less than legal workers, and I'm interested in how much less. (If at all, in some places.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Conjoined Twins and Murder

If Abby of the Abigail and Brittany Hensel twins commits murder, how will the US gov't try and convict if Brittany is innocent? --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear how the law handles conjoined twins for the purpose of sentencing; it just hasn't really been resolved yet, and the total number of conjoined twins is quite low. So any judge involved in sentencing would have to probably write up their own opinion on it, and it would probably be an interesting case. See Slate's take on it, as well, with historical examples, and there are other takes too if you google "conjoined twins legal". The Slate article brings up that in many ways it is not too different than imprisoning a pregnant woman, which happens all the time. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that one conjoined twin could plan and commit a murder without the knowledge and assistance of the other, so I doubt such an issue will ever arise.--Ludwigs2 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

True, but I don't think the questioner for a minute believed that it is a likely occurance, sounds purely hypothetical to me. :) Aiyda 19:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a "bad conjoined twin" could be sentenced to probation under the supervision of the "good conjoined twin," who cold be hired as a parole officer. An electronic ankle bracelet could be used to monitor their movements. Edison (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

QI claimed that when one of the Bunkers assaulted a man while drunk, he was spared a prison sentence because his conjoined brother was innocent. Actually, his brother might have been the man he assaulted...I'm not sure. Been a while since I saw that episode. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless they were to kill a federal official, it's more likely they would be tried by their state. In any case, the possibility of one committing premeditated homicide (or any serious crime), without the other having had a clue about it and some degree of complicity, seems highly unlikely. Maybe a moment-of-passion type of crime would be possible, though. Fittingly, such a case would require a judge with the wisdom of Solomon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

USA BOP deficit

Orange ~27% slice is "foreign and international".

What would happen if all the other countries demanded that the USA pay back the money it owes them? Would the USA go bankrupt?

The USA would just say "no". The bonds all have expiry dates and there is no reason for the US to pay them back early. What could happen is that they refuse to buy any more bonds once the current ones expire. That probably wouldn't be enough to bankrupt the US (most of the US public debt is held domestically) but it would push the interest rates up a lot. --Tango (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tango is correct — the debt is in the form of bills and bonds that are not callable by the bond purchasers. (Puttable bond may be the article for that type of scheme.) By the way, as this graph from our United States public debt article illustrates, about 27% of the US debt is held by "foreign and international" entities. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Tango that a foreign buyers' strike would not lead to de facto US bankruptcy. As he says, interest rates, not only on the US debt but on all forms of variable-rate debt in the US, would jump dramatically and would have to divert vast amounts of US capital from other investments, such as equities. Stock markets would plunge as a result, and the US budget deficit would balloon from the combined impact of 1) the loss of tax revenue due to the negative impact of higher interest rates on employment, retail sales, and capital gains; and 2) sharply increased debt-service costs. In order to cover that increased deficit, the US government would have to sharply increase its borrowing, further driving up interest rates, resulting in a vicious cycle that could really only result in default, hyperinflation, and/or a dramatic collapse in the value of the US dollar that would sharply reduce the real value of the US debt. The data in the pie graph above are questionable. The total or denominator used for the percentages in this graph includes nonmarketable Treasury debt, most of which is the government's debt to itself, which is reflected as a surplus or savings in another government account. The two amounts equal zero net debt for the government. If you take total foreign holdings of US treasury securities, or $3.6 trillion at the end of December 2009, as the numerator, and put this over total marketable publically held US Treasury securities outstanding at the same date, or $7.8 trillion, according to this source, you find that foreign entities owned 46% of the US government's external debt at the end of 2009. Marco polo (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Is all US federal government debt held as Treasury bonds? 71.70.143.134 (talk)

Rasputin's effect on russia

How did rasputin the mad monk effect russian royal family and what effect did he had ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.69.27 (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read our article on Grigori Rasputin. — Sebastian 18:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Plato's epistemology: how is knowledge of others possible?

If Plato believes knowledge to be a recollection of a perfect idea encountered in the world of the forms, is knowldge of other people possible?

Help much appriciated!

Thanks,Aiyda 19:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Malines Belgium

I have been searching for information about an artist -

I think his name is as follow with variations

carl van legch, or gegch, or gegeh, or legeh, I have a signed watercolor by this artist that says Malines Belgium, of a stone arched bridge in town with medieval buildings in the back ground.

Any suggestions as to who this artist is or where I can look is much apreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.86.218 (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Carl Van Gigel, little aside from that. meltBanana 20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs, but Malines is the Walloon rendering of Mechelen, and a search on Google Images for "Malines bridge Belgium" may produce something. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How to refer to Dutch people in 18th century

Hello, dear refdeskers! I came across this wikipedia article, and here it states something about DUTCH being applied rather loosely to cover German. How would an Englishman, a French and/or Spaniard refer to a citizen or soldier of Dutch origins in approximately 1720? To clarify entirely, a citizen or soldier from Amsterdam (but hopefully the term regards his nationality). Thank you greatly in advance. 77.18.5.107 (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)